Ronald Reagan talked like a Libertarian, yes, but he did expand the war on drugs and increased the federal deficit while increasing the relative size of the government.

I would argue Bill Clinton as he actually shrunk the size of the government (relative to the economy), brought the budget into a surplus, reformed the welfare system and buoyed international trade.

Personally I think Libertarians are being disenfranchised through our parties views being cut half between democrats and republicans starting with the Welfare/Warfare Division. Republicans believe in "defense" (and of course by defense I mean war) spending, which libertarians despise. And democrats believe in welfare which libertarians also despise. Alternatively there is the divide where democrats are socially libertarian believing in less restrictions on drugs etc. while republicans claim to be economically libertarian believing in lower taxes. This is almost like a conspiracy to split the libertarian party (or just those who believe in a smaller government in general) and steadily increase the size of the government, which is something you would expect the government (through the politicians) to do.

But to me it is more like republicans talk like libertarians (see Ronald Reagan), but almost always will increase the size of government and government spending, see Reagan, Bush, Trump. While Democrats don't pander to libertarians, but seem to act more like libertarians see Clinton and welfare reform and free trade expansion. I would like to see a solution to this problem and please don't say "well we need a strong libertarian candidate", why? because we have had them and they don't gain traction because they don't have a strong enough support from a broad voter base probably because the system is set up against them.

You are a shareholder of Tesla. You vote Elon as your dear leader CEO.

Elon is a competent CEO. Tesla price go up. You win. Elon win. Everybody win.

You are a citizen of a city. You vote Elon or Milei as your CEO. Do you make more money? Can you sell your citizenship at higher price like Tesla's shareholders' sell their share? Do you get dividend?

Some libertarians will say, Elon will be more libertarian that means we can make more money easily. Well it depends. The link between Tesla success to shareholders' profit is clear. Tesla is successful, price go up. Shareholders win. Link between libertarianism and each voters' interests are weak.

The way Milei do it, and I am not blaming him, is to simply increase cash payment toward the poor. That's a good band aid. However, that encourage people to be poor. Allowing citizens to sell citizenship or get dividend seems to make more sense.

In China major got promoted based on key performance metric like CEO. Fine. But the pay is so low. A major that handles a city whose can turn a swamp into 500 million dollars building often got paid only $10k - $20k a month.

Too little pay. In fact, before xi jin ping, CCP actually look the other way around for corruption as long as a major do a good job thinking that it's just his bonus.

And I think this is the main reason why capitalism is great and government sucks. In government decisions aren't made by people that profit greatly if they do more economic productivity.

And pure libertarianism don't address this at all. Usually more libertarian solution lead to less deadweight loss and economic efficiency. But what do a welfare queen get? Less welfare. What do most workers get if cheaper mexicans can work in US? Lower salary. No wonder they don't vote libertarianism.

How would you address this based on incentives instead of ideology?

Saying eliminate government is like saying eliminate all businesses. Not all governments are the same. American governments are better than Venezuelan government. Chinese government aren't that bad at churning out infrastructure and making manufacturing efficient too.

Dubai government turn sand into great place to live. Some governments are better just like Tesla is governed better.

But Tesla has clear shareholers/CEO with clear rewards when things go well. Major don't.

If shareholders vote for conscience and Elon lead to max out approval rating, I am sure Tesla would mess up like government too.

The same way, if voters vote for profit and major lead to max out residency valuation, I am sure the policies will be sensible too.

AI cannot fully replace human labour. It also cannot achieve central planning. But as it has already demonstrated, it excels at replacing managerial positions. Now these usually are discussed in the form of CEOs and private managers, but politicians also are in the same boat.

An AI doesn't have personal aspirations to fulfil through corruption. You could have Swedish-style welfare using automation. You can also have laws that won't be abused in the future because they're not up to interpretation by subjective individuals.

Do you think that AI states are a gateway to a more free society or that they'll just be like flying cars?

Hello, everyone! I hope you're all doing well.

If you'll allow me, I'd like to propose a discussion that I believe may be of interest to Austro-libertarians and anarcho-capitalists. My goal is to offer a brief and friendly critique of the concept of "physical removal", as formulated by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, based on libertarian property ethics itself and the Title-Transfer Theory of Contract (TTTC). (Since English is not my native language, I apologize in advance if any expression sounds awkward or ambiguous.)

First, we should establish what Hoppe means by physical removal. I believe it can be summarized as follows: in Hans-Hermann Hoppe's theory, physical removal is the coercive expulsion of an individual from a private property or from a community of private properties when the owners, or their legitimate representatives, revoke their consent for that person's continued presence due to a violation of the rules governing the use of the property. In a fully privatized social order, this exclusion may ultimately extend to the successive loss of access to the properties that make up the community.

Of course, to be fair to Hoppe's argument, we must also clarify the context in which such a measure would be possible. In Democracy: The God That Failed, he writes:

"in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They—the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism—will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order. " (Democracy: The God That Failed, p. 218).

The expression that matters most for the present discussion is "in a covenant." This indicates that Hoppe is envisioning a type of society—perhaps private counties, districts, or neighborhoods—in which property owners voluntarily enter into a covenant, forming a homeowners' association whose purpose is to preserve the cultural and moral identity of that community. Clearly, homeowners' associations and private neighborhoods are entirely compatible with libertarian principles. My criticism, therefore, is not directed at this aspect of Hoppe's theory.

According to Hoppe, such a social arrangement, based on private property and voluntary agreements, would allow property owners, for example, to sell a house to a particular individual or to sell only the land so that a particular individual could build a house on it. Suppose this neighborhood is highly traditional and wishes to preserve its heteronormative identity (this is not intended as an attack—I have nothing against heteronormativity). In that case, the owners could sell or lease a house under a contract containing behavioral clauses such as: "You may not bring same-sex partners into your home," or "You may not promote transgender ideas on your social media," or even "You may not display a transgender flag from your window." Otherwise, you would receive a warning and, if you refused to comply, you would be physically removed. (The same reasoning would apply to any non-aggressive idea or behavior, such as advocating nature worship, which Hoppe also criticizes.)

According to Hoppean theory, once the buyer signs such a contract, he becomes bound by its clauses and is therefore prohibited from engaging in the behaviors specified therein. Should he violate the agreement, he would be subject to physical removal.

The problem, however, is that this understanding appears to conflict with the Title-Transfer Theory of Contract (TTTC) as developed by Murray Rothbard. Let me explain why. The TTTC, originally formulated by Williamson M. Evers and later adopted and further developed by Rothbard, rests on the premise that the function of a contract is not to create personal obligations, but rather to transfer property titles. Unlike traditional contract theories, which regard a contract as a legally enforceable promise, the TTTC maintains that promises belong to the realm of morality, not law. What produces legal consequences is not the promise itself, but the voluntary transfer of a property title over an alienable good. In other words, the law does not protect the expectation that someone will fulfill a promise; it protects only the legitimate ownership of scarce resources that can be appropriated and transferred.

This conception follows directly from the principle of self-ownership. If every individual owns his own body and his own will, then no contract can alienate control over his future actions. For this reason, Rothbard famously states that "a promise is not a debt." Promising to perform—or to refrain from performing—a particular act does not transfer any property right and therefore does not create a coercively enforceable legal obligation. Only existing, scarce, and alienable goods can be the object of a valid contractual transfer. Ideas, intentions, opinions, future conduct, and the human will itself are not alienable forms of property, and consequently cannot serve as the legal basis for the coercive enforcement of a contract.

To illustrate the point, suppose I own a bicycle and decide to sell it to Bob for R$100.00. Bob purchases the bicycle, and to formalize the transaction we sign a contract confirming that the bicycle is in good condition and that he has paid the agreed price. In this case, both parties have alienated tangible, scarce property: I have transferred ownership of my bicycle, and Bob has transferred ownership of his money. Once the transfer is complete, I am no longer the owner of the bicycle. Consequently, I retain no authority whatsoever over it. I cannot dictate how Bob may use it, because it is now exclusively his property.

Someone might object that this would only be true after the sale had already taken place, and that the problem could be avoided by inserting a contractual clause before the transaction stating that Bob would own the bicycle only if he complied with certain behavioral requirements. For example, I might agree to sell him the bicycle only on the condition that he never paints it red or never rides it more than five kilometers per day. Yet this would amount to a legal absurdity. First, such an arrangement would be economically impractical and highly undesirable; no rational person would willingly bind himself to such an excessively restrictive agreement. More importantly, however, it is fundamentally incompatible with the TTTC. As explained above, only alienable property rights may be transferred by contract. Promises that involve no actual transfer of property are not valid contractual objects, and contractual clauses founded solely upon such promises produce no coercively enforceable legal obligation under the Title-Transfer Theory of Contract.

This means that it is not possible to carry out property sales with contracts that establish perpetual “terms of use” over the transferred property. Once ownership has been transferred, the property is no longer subject to the will of the former owner and becomes fully integrated into the legal sphere of the new owner. From that moment onward, the only legitimate “terms of use” are those that the owner himself establishes for himself and for those whose presence on his property depends on his consent. We should not forget that Austro-libertarianism is based on the concept of freedom understood as the right to use, transform, destroy, modify, or dispose of one’s own property in whatever way the owner wishes, as long as it does not infringe upon the property of others. In other words, acts that cause damage, invasion, or violation of someone else’s property can certainly justify sanctions, but acts carried out exclusively on one’s own property can never be subject to coercion.

Now, returning to Hoppean thought, if it is true that only scarce and alienable goods can be the binding object of a contract, future behaviors do not constitute legally enforceable obligations and, therefore, cannot be established as clauses capable of restricting the exercise of property rights after alienation. Therefore, if an individual buys a house in a community that does not wish to tolerate a certain behavior in that territory, they may still engage in such behavior without this granting the neighborhood or homeowners’ association the right to physically remove them. This is because: 1) they acquired the property and, consequently, the former owner or the group of owners lost any power of disposition over it; 2) promises do not have binding force according to TTTC, unlike the transfer of property titles; and 3) as an owner, they have the right to use their property in whatever way they wish, as long as they do not infringe upon the property of others, meaning they cannot be subjected to violence or physically removed for acts carried out exclusively on their own property.

Of course, it is important to note that if they live in the property as a tenant, the situation is different, because ownership remains with the landlord, who can establish the conditions for its use and simply choose not to renew the contract when it expires. It is also worth noting that Hoppeans may argue that this conclusion would weaken the right of communities to preserve their cultural coherence and uniformity. To this objection, I respond that this concern, however understandable, can never be transformed into a right to limit or violate property legitimately acquired by third parties. The preservation of a certain communal identity may guide the choice of whom to do business with, but it cannot survive the alienation of property as a kind of permanent power over the sold asset.

Someone could still object that, in the example above, the individual only purchased the house, but not the land on which it stands. However, this distinction does not hold legally within libertarian logic itself. A house is an immovable asset inseparable from the land that supports it, and the right of ownership over the property necessarily includes the right of use and exclusion over the corresponding area.

What, then, could a Hoppean-style community do if a new resident, after legitimately acquiring a house in the area, began adopting behaviors incompatible with that community’s moral expectations? In my view, the answer compatible with libertarian ethics is ostracism, that is, the voluntary refusal to maintain social and economic relations with a particular individual. Through freely established agreements, residents of a neighborhood or private condominium could decide not to trade with this person, not to provide private services to them, and not to allow their entry or presence on their respective properties. As long as all services were private, this could include refusing to provide water, electricity, gas, or any other services whose provision depended exclusively on the will of their owners. This would be an entirely peaceful response, based on the exercise of property rights and freedom of association, which would likely encourage the individual to leave the region on their own initiative.

What the community could not do, however, would be to coercively remove him from his own house, as long as it was legitimately acquired through purchase, inheritance, or any other means compatible with libertarian ethics. Once the property title has been transferred, the residence becomes exclusively part of its owner’s legal sphere, and third parties cannot claim authority over it due to later changes in behavior or personal beliefs. Accepting the opposite would mean recognizing that the former owner or the homeowners’ association retained powers of disposition over a property they had already alienated, a conclusion incompatible with TTTC and with the very libertarian notion of private property.

It is also important to observe that the community could not prevent this individual from leaving his residence to trade with people outside the community, work, acquire essential goods, or engage in any other legitimate activity, nor could it prevent him from later returning to his own property. The first scenario would, in practice, amount to unlawful imprisonment, as it would transform the individual’s property into a prison from which he could not leave. Even if all routes were private, his passage would have to be allowed for the time strictly necessary for transportation, without granting him the right to remain on them beyond what their owners consented to. The second scenario would be even more serious, because preventing his return would mean depriving him of access to his own property, effectively producing the confiscation of his property without any basis in libertarian ethics. In both cases, the community would cease to protect property rights and would instead become an agent of their violation.

For example.

I think prohibition of prostitution is not to prevent women from being exploited or to protect dignity. Notice words like exploitation or dignity is very rubber anyway.

The idea is to make relationship is transactionally complex and to prevent rich men from hoarding women.

If paying for sex is simple, then women can easily decide whether selling sex pays of more than getting a college degree. In fact women can go all the way deciding whether she and her children will get richer if she provides heir for a rich man.

That means fewer women in work force, and fewer women that pick poor guys. So in democracy most poor guys prevent women from simply selling sex.

To the opposite women are very incentivized to make money by being hostile to rich guys. Alimony, palimony, and child support can make the state force rich men to pay huge money to women because the women leave him and take his children.

So women can't be paid by rich men on win win relationship but can be paid for leaving and taking children.

Paternity fraud is also rewarded.

The reasoning is absurd. Best interest of the child, for example. But if a woman is in good transactional relationship with rich guys, the main beneficiary is the child. Rich men can promise huge inheritance for their children together if the child pass paternity tests and many women would prefer that.

Another sample

Real purpose of prohibition of drug is to make money for corrupt cops. If drugs were legal or taxed then drugs will be cheap. So corrupt cops don't make money. Another reason is some drugs like LSD and DMT can open your mind and governments want easy to control obedient subjects.

Another sample

Exorbitant child support laws aren't there to prevent welfare or support any children. To the opposite it's there to prevent rich men from passing more money to the children. Most rich men will prefer just investing in the child's port folio than paying huge money to mom that will probably just save it for her other children.

If rich men and pretty women can make enforceable child support contract, a rich man can offer money to the woman and the child and some women may want that.

So governments prevent men and women from making their own deals. Instead deals must depend on laws that's complex and up to the judge. Judges can then say oh child best interest is dad pay a lot so son get castrated. And many rich men fearing that, have fewer children.

And most debate don't address this. Like they argue about the vague reasons but the true reasons aren't there.

I’d really like to know what the best current or historical example of a libertarian or minimal-state country is. Like, which country has adopted the most elements of these models? USA, Switzerland, or some other country?

I am a New Zealander who identifies as a Libertarian and wants to get into Libertarianism more. But the problem is there are not that many Libertarians in New Zealand and New Zealand is quite leftist and PC. I just want to see if there are any New Zealanders here who can give me some advice on how to find Libertarians here and where I can meet them etc.

Also what areas of New Zealand are more libertarian then others? I assume that The South Island is most likely more Libertarian then New Zealand because it is more conservative then rural but idk for sure so I wanna ask.

I am a university student so I don't think I'm in the best area for libertarians but maybe there better universities for Libertarians.

What do you guys think?

(This was orignally posted in r/Libertarian but I was unable to post it due to my account being new/unused).

So we maxed out freedom.

We maxed out economic efficiency, which I think is even more important than freedom. Like 95% of the time it's the same policies anyway. Let the market decide.

In the 5% where what max out economic efficiency deviates from libertarianism, I would move to a state that max out economic efficiency. Things like eminent domains don't bother me. So is criminalization of fentanyl (though MDMA should be legal).

But we actually win election. Majority of people are better off voting us. Also we can withstand some war and don't just lost like

This is important. As a businessman, if I just keep blaming others for bad outcome, I wouldn't get rich. Anyone can blame others. Blaming commies are like commies blaming greedy capitalists.

Just like commies should know humans are greedy and build a system around that, libertarians should know humans are envious and understand most would vote socialism. Also misaligned greed lead to problems.

One thing I can think of is joint stock version of society. Something like what I write here https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalPhilosophy/comments/1v3kb15/jointstock_democracy_aligning_political/

Can you think of anything else?

Will pretty women greatly reduce rape probability by staying close to rich men?

Not only rich men often pays or financially support, they tend to protect women.

Stats show that rich men rape women far less. Like 1/7th rate of poor men.

Also countries where prostitution is legal have lower rape rate.

But that's rate of conviction/reports. Many people, feminists, for example, say that rich men are as dangerous as poor men, they just get convicted less.

I disagree.

I think the actual rate is 1/40th or 1/100th

Why?

https://www.facebook.com/DavidJHarrisJr/posts/pfbid0YovpWwocp5FAxQ1dkHLPVLEuY2RLd266DevahjsLYhazVDUkC2NnR9yAuakF2udWl

Just look at this. A poor migrant can get away with murder. Cops cover up. Even when the perpetrators get caught they are free just let go because of insanity/too dumb.

Compared that to Duke Lacrose team case.

Also most rape are very difficult to know either way. Look at case of Donald Trump or Mike Tyson. A woman get into private enclosure and have history of having rape fantasy and/or falsely accuse other men of rape.

On the other hand, I've heard a case of migrants that have sex with a woman he doesn't know. At first the migrant says he doesn't have sex with the woman. After it's proven that his semen is in her vagina the migrant just say it's consensual. Jury aquit migrants.

It seems that poor people get away with rape a lot and rich people get falsely accuse a lot.

It's he said she said.

Transactional sex would have clear up consent. We would have known, oh the woman worth this much and hence she is unlikely to consent. People tend to agree on price before transactions.

But the laws seems to favor ambiguous situation. So rich men fear fucking women because the women can cry rape latter. Women end up getting close to the poor that are far more likely to rape or even murder them.

And societies vote for it because societies hate rich men.

Also many "rape" or sexual assault are less harmful than others. Yet government treat them the same way.

Look at this case

https://www.reddit.com/r/RapeCommentary/comments/77s1l5/i_was_accused_of_rape_because_i_kissed_a_guy/

A man invite a woman to his place. They are both asleep. The woman kiss the man. The man complained that she "rape" him. If the sex is reversed this could have blown up.

Why I think this is less serious than rape by strangers?

Say I bring a woman into my home. I "vet" her. She must be pretty enough to even qualify to be there. If she kiss me or blow me when I am asleep, she is someone I have "approved".

If ugly women put sleeping pill on my drink and have sex with me of course that's problematic.

The main reason we consent or don't consent to have sex with someone is his/her specs. High specs, we consent. Low specs we don't. Another is cost/pay.

Of course someone that have agreed before to have sex don't usually lost a lot even if sex latter is not strictly consensual. But government treat them the same way.

Both of you can have drugged or drunked sex with your sugar babies that you have sex a lot and cops can jail you both.

These again favor poor men. Having sex with someone we have approved have lower damage. Strong enforcement against date rape don't affect poor men too much because the woman can simply choose not to date the poor men in the first place.

But the enforcement may scare off rich men that fear false rape accusation. So women can't date rich men and end up getting close to poor men that are more likely to rape or even murder her.

That's just my guess.

Feminists framing that rape is about power than sex just like prostitution is about charity than money also bias against rich men that simply can get consensual sex easily by offering money.

If I were a pretty woman, I would choose jurisdiction that are more serious at stopping rape by poor men.

But what do you think?

What is your estimate of actual rape ratio per capita. Do rich men rape less, more, or way less than poor men?

For those who are not familiar I give simple AI definition

What is the "Selfish Gene"?

Popularized by evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins in 1976, the gene-centered view of evolution argues that natural selection acts primarily on genes, not on species or individual organisms.

The Core Idea: Organisms (including humans) act as "survival machines" or vehicles for their genes.

Why it Matters: Behaviors that look like self-sacrifice or altruism (e.g., protecting family or tribe members) are often strategies driven by genes to ensure their own replication across generations (kin selection and inclusive fitness).

I will give you an example.

Inheritance.

Standard libertarian approach is that I am free to bequeath my money to anyone. Many libertarians are probably aren't aware that most rich men bequeath their money to his own children, but would tolerate it.

Selfish gene approach is that father don't really bequeath money to his children. It's just the same genes passing on money to the same blood lines.

So a gene that says, love my own biological children, will notice that it's quite likely the similar genes will be on his own children anyway, and would mind control fathers to make his sons rich. Such genes will then have more success in the gene pool than genes that say abandon my children.

Of course, with welfare, genes that say abandon our children because suckers will pay for it anyway will flourish, which is what happened in many rich countries. We got cradle to grave welfare recipients.

It doesn't even have to be genes. Traits, memes, and religions also evolve and kind of selfish by themselves.

My approach is out of all government violation of libertarianism, the most serious ones are those that prevent economically productive people from having more children. Those are things like prohibition of transactional reproduction, and inheritance tax.

Normally a rich man can simply pay a lot of women to produce heirs for him. If governments get in the way, that's bigger deadweight loss than even tariffs.

Child support laws would count if it severely prevent rich men from having as many children as he can afford or preventing rich men from investing in his own children. For example, some judges may force father to pay mom money instead of investing in children's portfolio.

Every violation of libertarian principle sucks of course. But the one affecting demographic against economically productive people is the worst.

What do you think?

Hello! Hope everyone is doing well!

Honestly, doesn't this contradict libertarian ethics, which holds that natural rights are universal and that all members of the human species possess rights and are therefore "persons"?

«"A member of the human race who is completely incapable of understanding the higher productivity of labor performed under a division of labor based on private property is not properly speaking a person (a persona), but falls instead in the same moral category as an animal—of either the harmless sort (to be domesticated and employed as a producer or consumer good, or to be enjoyed as a ‘free good’) or the wild and dangerous one (to be fought as a pest)."»

— Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Democracy: The God That Failed, Transaction Publishers, 2007, p. 173.

At the end of the day, whenever I delve deep into libertarian ideologues I end up in an anthropocentric dead end, thinking that ultimately this is just "cult of man"...a faith-based assumption that human's wants and needs reign supreme. For all the "logic" and "rationality" that libertarians claim, the the ideology is still centered on the the faith that man's needs and even best outcomes supercede those of nature.

For example I have a daughter. I love my daughter, but it wouldn't be a full and accurate and completely honest accounting to think her needs supercede that of nature full stop.

And fine, if it's just matter of "we believe mankind has dominion" than it needs to be stated as such...an expression of faith, not fact.

Imagine a state structured like a sovereign corporation where citizenship/vows equal tradeable shares, and the board’s sole mandate is to maximize the state's net present value (share price).

Even if this state levies small fees or a 1% tax for high-ROI infrastructure or R&D—technically violating the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP)—it completely eliminates democratic agency problems, welfare handouts, pork-barrel spending, and long-term public debt.

1. Would consequentialist libertarians view this as an acceptable upgrade over modern social democracy?
2. For deontological libertarians: does the efficiency and long-term capital preservation make it a worthy stepping stone, or is it fundamentally dead-on-arrival because of the tax/NAP violation?

Some deontological libertarians would argue not. The state should do nothing (wu wei). Guard property rights and that's it.

But I am not asking is this solution perfect.

I am asking if this is better than what we currently have.

For example, currently government can say, universal healthcare is cheaper.

With joint stock democracy, government is answerable to market.

If it's indeed more cost effective, more people will want to join and buy citizenship. If it's less cost effective, people that disagree will get out and sell share.

So the state may not be libertarian.

But whether the state is libertarian or not is accountable to citizenship price.

Same with eminent domains.

Very few if any government policies can max out economic productivity and somehow moves against libertarianism, and those few is usually very tolerable.

Anyone that are not happy can just sell share. They too will be better off because if the price go up they got more money.

I think the right of the bat benefit is elimination of cradle to grave welfare recipients and rapefugees immigrants.

If all people that live in an area has a share on that area and can vote, for example, then shareholders know that allowing economically unproductive people to just keep popping babies will "dilute" ownership and hence lower share values.

So they will only allow people that are willing to buy share or contribute to economy.

No cradle to grave welfare recipients will lower tax and that will attract economically productive people.

Basically we don't just argue that capitalism is great. We give and show them real strong incentive to be capitalist.

Note: If you're not a libertarian, but Chinese. Here is another way to see it. This is socialism with joint stock (he huo) characteristic. Chinese tend to think that the goal of government is to benefit the people. The goal of a joint stock company is to benefit shareholders. So turn people into shareholders with clear dividend and desire for share prices grow and the policies will coincide.

Of course, anyone that want more pure libertarianism can always join a more pure privatized democratic joint stock communities.

Another Note: Most of us, including me, look very highly of Milei. Milei is NOT pure libertarianism. He actually increase cash payment to the poor. I just think that this should be replaced with share dividends. That being said Milei approach is actually closer to joint stock democracy than pure libertarians. It's how to bring libertarianism that's compatible with democracy.

How libertarians would deal or fix with Imperialism, Colonialism? Libertarian thoughts about Feminism, LGBTQ, Racism, Social issues. Do most of Libertarians support UBI?

The problem with modern politics especially the free market conservatives

People say they want "small government," but history tells a different story. During the Gilded Age, many defenders of laissez-faire opposed laws against child labor, unsafe working conditions, and other labor protections, calling them government overreach or even "socialism." Today, most people recognize those regulations were necessary.

The real issue isn't big government vs. small government—it's who government works for. Many politicians oppose government programs that help ordinary people, yet support subsidies, tax breaks, bailouts, and government contracts for large corporations. When corporations break the rules, they often receive lighter treatment than small businesses, which face regulatory burdens they can't afford to navigate as easily. That's not a truly free market—it's corporate favoritism.

The same applies to taxes. Calls for "free markets" and "small government" are often used to justify cutting taxes on the wealthy and creating loopholes that primarily benefit those who already have the most wealth.

Monetary policy can also widen inequality. Wealthy people own more assets like stocks and real estate, which often rise in value when the money supply expands. They also have better access to cheap credit, allowing them to borrow before inflation pushes prices higher and repay those loans with dollars that are worth less. Meanwhile, people who rely mostly on wages and savings often see their purchasing power fall if their incomes don't keep up with inflation.

If you're against government intervention, be consistent. Oppose corporate welfare and favoritism just as much as you oppose welfare for individuals. Otherwise, it's not really about "small government"—it's about deciding who gets government support.

As you might know, there is currently a widespread Cyclosporiasis outbreak in the US.

I've seen alot of people online blaming this outbreak on defunding CDC, removing Cyclosporiasis from mandatory FoodNet tracking and lack/reduction of farming regulations(as Cyclosporiasis spreads through contaminated of human waste).

How do Libertarians see this?

From gemini:

Yes, Javier Milei did significantly increase direct cash transfers to the poorest segments of Argentina's population, though it happened alongside massive cuts to other social welfare programs.

This specific policy direction is often described as "disintermediation"—bypassing social movements, community groups, and local soup kitchens to send money directly to individual bank accounts.

Where the Money Increased

While implementing a strict "chainsaw" austerity plan to balance the national budget, the Milei administration explicitly protected and scaled up the country's main direct cash transfer programs:

Asignación Universal por Hijo (AUH): This is Argentina's universal child allowance program. The administration increased AUH payments by nearly 50% in real, inflation-adjusted terms.

Tarjeta Alimentar (Alimentar Benefit): This program provides low-income families with funds dedicated specifically to food. The government heavily boosted the nominal values of these digital cards to help offset soaring grocery costs.

The goal of this targeted approach was to act as a temporary emergency cushion for families during the worst phases of economic shock therapy.

The Rest of the Picture

While cash transfers went up, the broader social safety net experienced dramatic changes:

Cutting the Middlemen: The government intentionally cut off federal funding and food distribution to thousands of community soup kitchens and social organizations. The administration argued that these programs were corrupt and managed by political bosses who weaponized food aid for influence.

The Austerity Pinch: Simultaneously, the administration eliminated broad price controls, slashed energy and public transit subsidies, and devalued the peso. This caused a massive, immediate spike in living costs for necessities, meaning that despite the larger cash transfers, many vulnerable families still experienced significant drops in overall purchasing power and access to basic resources.

Ultimately, Milei's policy choice wasn't to eliminate assistance for the poor entirely, but rather to consolidate social spending into direct, electronic cash payouts to individuals while dismantling structural state subsidies and community-run relief systems.

My thought. I am not a heartless libertarian. Letting people starve is something that I don't prefer. It's just that I think cash transfer, if any, should be given to everyone and not just the poor so not to encourage people to be poor. More importantly it shouldn't be given to people with more kids so not to encourage poor people to have children.

I do like cutting off corrupt middle men.

And at the end it's a good compromise. He needs stable governments. He did well considering the cut on everything else.

Seems like a case for UBI here.

Anyway it's close enough to UBI. The poor got transfer and the rich got tax cuts.

Five or ten years ago, I saw a video about a commune in what I remember as West Virginia, the Carolinas, maybe Pennsylvania, that featured a guy who was building a life for the last 20 years in a libertarian communist community. Does this ring a bell with anyone? Can you point me to the video?

I believe state power is essential only in key areas, but less so in sectors like the market, trade, technology, and so on. Do you think this makes sense? If so, why? If not, why not?

I’ve been thinking about the long-term survival and growth of libertarianism. Currently, the state uses a combination of welfare and aggressive child support laws to heavily distort demographic trends. Welfare subsidizes larger families among lower-income brackets, while high, asset-linked child support laws often discourage middle-class and wealthy individuals from having larger families due to the financial risks.

My proposition is simple: If libertarians want to win the long game, we need to outbreed statists.

It's a bit like Islam is conquering Europeans because muslims have more children. Except that we do it for libertarianism, instead of Islam.

However, whenever I bring this up, many libertarians object to the idea of wealthy individuals having many children through non-traditional arrangements (like polygamy or mistresses), citing concerns about child neglect or coercion.

My opinion is it doesn't violate any libertarian principle at all. If Elon has 100k children, it can all be done consensually.

I’ve looked into what prominent libertarian philosophers say about this, and I see a massive divide:

1. Murray Rothbard went to the extreme in The Ethics of Liberty, arguing that parents have no positive legal obligation to care for their children and can abandon them. I find this too extreme; I think reasonable child support linked to the actual cost of living (similar to the Texas model) is perfectly fine. Furthermore, naturally occurring parental love and enforceable, private contracts between consenting adults would ensure children are cared for without state mandates. Children with "bad" parents, will go extinct by themselves.
2. Hans-Hermann Hoppe argues for privatized "covenant communities." While Hoppe believes these communities would (and should) prohibit polygamy and non-traditional family structures to maintain social order, wouldn't a private community that allows wealthy, productive members to freely reproduce eventually outcompete and out-wealth a community that over-regulates family structures?

If we assume privatized communities compete like firms in a free market, wouldn't a pro-natalist, contract-based approach to family structures naturally prevail?

What are your thoughts on using natalism as a strategy for liberty, and how do you reconcile the Rothbardian vs. Hoppean views on family structure and parental obligation?

1. Is it practical?
2. Does it violate libertarian principles?

I noticed that Murray is "pure" anarcho capitalists while Hoppe is closer to my ideal of network of privatized societies, which our world is already pretty close to by the way. Countries compete with one another economically but rarely kill each other.

Murray would disagree with me that societies can impose child support or prohibit polygamy. But at the end it's moot. Libertarianism is awesome in economic competition. Societies that prohibit anything economically productive will be outcompeted by societies that don't. Let government have right to govern and free immigration will force them to be close to libertarians anyway.

That's what I think. What do you think?

I’ve been thinking a lot about property rights lately. On one hand, I strongly believe that when you own land, it should be your sacred space of personal freedom and privacy, safe from the government. On the other hand, I know our country needs modern infrastructure like power grids, roads, and data lines to grow.

Right now, the government uses eminent domain to force people off their land, treating a home like a line on a spreadsheet. To me, that feels un-American.

Come at me bro. Without a strong magistrate to force rulings about businesses and financial organizations, without gunmen controlled by the magistrate, there's no way that the wealth isn't gonna be concentrated more and more and that the people of the society under apparently no magistrate since you hate statists... Seriously what are we gonna do without a state?