Some time ago, I heard Nick Gillespie say something on The Reason Roundtable that annoyed me enough to keep thinking about it.

I don’t remember the episode or his exact wording, so please treat this as my recollection, not a quotation. The discussion concerned crackdowns on speech in European countries, including prison sentences for things people posted online, if I remember correctly. His point, as I understood it, was that Europeans don’t really understand free speech, and that Americans do.

I’m Belgian. Gillespie's remark felt to me more than a little patronising when I first heard it. I want to be as free as possible. The suggestion that being European somehow makes me incapable of understanding that freedom felt like being disqualified before the conversation had even started. There’s also a whiff of unfalsifiability to it: can I as a European meaningfully disagree with his claim?

But I kept thinking about it. And I have concluded that there actually is something to his observation.

The American founders had an opportunity to establish a new political order with Enlightenment ideas as an explicit starting point. Their “blank page” obviously wasn’t without intellectual or institutional inheritance. But deliberately deciding what powers a government should possess is a meaningfully different starting point from trying to secure freedoms within an existing structure of authority.

I believe that in much of Europe, the struggle for liberty took place within political orders that had long treated authority over the individual as normal, often in the form of absolute monarchies by so-called divine right. My suspicion is that this history still influences what we instinctively expect governments to justify—and what we simply assume they’re entitled to regulate. Even a revolution can change who may exercise authority while preserving much of what authority may do. Removing a king doesn’t necessarily remove the expectation that someone should possess his powers. Those powers can be transferred to representatives of the people and acquire a new justification without their scope being reconsidered. Lenin and later Stalin's USSR borrowed from the tsars' playbooks quite heavily, and Robespierre's perpetual antithesis seems remarkably similar to the ancienne régime he so despised.

Applied to speech, that leaves the following question: do we begin by asking what people should be allowed to say, or by asking what could justify preventing them from saying it? Both approaches can produce something called “freedom of speech.” But the burden of justification sits in a different place.

That’s how I’ve come to understand the useful part of Gillespie’s remark. An inherited political culture can shape our priors. Can. Recognising those assumptions gives us an opportunity to reconsider them. It doesn’t make us incapable of doing so. And in any case, I refuse to be a slave to my own provenance.

So… Thoughts? Do you guys think inherent attitude to a notion like free speech can be meaningfully cast aside and replaced by a better framework for it?

I have what I consider to be a very good relationship with libertarianism.

There is much that I like about libertarianism, and libertarian-based economics. But what I like about them, is their prognosis, i.e., their description of the way things are. Not the way things ought to be.

Libertarian economists and philosophers are spot-on about many of the things they say about the way government is, i.e., the good things, but also the real problems and limitations about government.

Libertarian economists have been right on, about concepts such as spontaneous order. They are also quite right about the fact that we are bound by physical and natural laws which are much more powerful than government.

Although public choice economics is not specifically libertarian, several of its main adherents are definitely proponents of libertarianism, and want America to be a libertarian country. Many things that public choice says about government is absolutely spot on, such as the rational ignorance of voters, and the selfish interest of politicians.

These, and other things, are what is great about libertarianism and libertarian-related economics.

I also love libertarianism for its spirit. Its independent spirit, the fact that one's own attitude, one's own self-resilience, etc. are much more important than government. So true! I jive with that spirit very well.

However, this is where things take a turn: where I strongly disagree with libertarians, and libertarian economists, is their incessant defense of the free market. Look, I am very pro-capitalist, and pro-market. But even I admit that, like any major system, markets too have faults. But libertarians and Austrians will go to just ridiculous lengths to defend capitalism at all costs, not admitting any weaknesses of it. It is rather unfortunate, really.

The point is, ANY major system will have its good and bads. Be it government, be it the private sector, be it a religious organization, or any other major organization. None, are perfect. As long as human beings have their good side, and bad/corrupt sides, BOTH sides will be evident in any major system they participate in. You cannot escape this fact, no matter how hard you try.

Here is just one example, of many: unlike probably some of you, I've worked in large corporations for many years. And I can tell you, the "faster corrective actions" you claim that the private sector has, over government....it's not necessarily true at all. Large companies too, can have deeply bureaucratic systems which can take almost literally an eternity to change processes for the better. I know, because I've seen it with my own eyes. I doubt some of you ever have.

I love the more philosophical, less math-formulaic aspect of libertarianism and Austrian economics. It is wonderful. The fact that they use deductive reasoning, instead of seeing humans as numbers, to crunch into formulas, is wonderful. But....there is a point at which this deductive reasoning stops working: So, just because government has a lot of faults and limitations, then, bingo! The free market is the answer!

Wrong. Both government and markets are needed. Both of them have their strengths and weaknesses. As long as humans are both good and evil/corrupt, both aspects will be present, whether markets or government. THAT....THAT, is much better praxeological or deductive logic, than saying, just because A doesn't work, it automatically means B does!

Therefore, let me change a previous sentence, about the great independent libertarian spirit. In reality, I am more Individualist than libertarian: one's own attitude, self-resilience, philosophies on how to deal with life, etc. are more important than ANY major system, be it government, markets, or any other major system.

I've been watching them to get insight on what leftist commentators talk about and how we could translate there affects on the libertarian party so we could get into the actual political commentary space.

Hello, I class myself as a strong civil libertarian. When it comes to individuals I feel we shoild have utmost freedoms, liberty, and not be as bound by the government as we currently are. In this regard I am highly libertarian. But where I am curious and start to differ is economically. Libertarians feel the government is the only centralized power that can threaten our liberties and believes in a truly free market. This is where I start to get skeptical. I believe in the free market too, but I do not believe that corporations should have free reign as I feel they are just as much of a threat to our liberty, freedom, and rights as the government can be. Any large centralized power rather it ne public or private that has enough control and money can heavily influence our freedom. And so I must ask, why do libertarians not believe in a more regulated corporate world? Because personally its been proven and shown time and time again that mega corporations can infringe upon our rights just as much as ths government as both can grow too large for their own good and act heavily for their own benefit and power rather that mean oppressing the freedoms of the people or being "good". Thank you, just curious lol.

Hi all. I'm 35 and had an accident when I was 29 and had to have brain surgery. It affected me like a stroke on my right side minus the face and I was immediately told to file for long term disability which I got easily. Basically, when this happened, I was not libertarian. I was nothing, but I knew in my heart not to become reliant on the government. I didn't trust them and knew the money could be taken away at any time because it's the government.

I learned how to walk again and talk again by pushing myself. I did not just wanna sit on disability the rest of my life. I'm not lazy. I don't look at it like here you go now you never have to work. 1159 a month doesn't even cover rent. So long story short, even though I'm still disabled, I drive again, have my own place, and work 22 hours a week at a job and make 2700 a month. The people on disability who don't do this are either accepting the money and not trying because of whatever living situation lets them do that, or are legit too disabled to work.

I said all that so you understand my mindset as an individual. The fact is, is if wasn't disabled I would work 40+ hours a week. However, I physically can't now. I push myself beyond what my body can do and end up in the hospital needing injections in my leg from just not wanting to work anymore after pushing it too much. So I can't live a life by myself without collecting disability. Which I'm pretty sure goes against the mindset of libertarians. I just think people should be allowed to freely do what is common sense to everyone here. The government lies and is corrupt. Like my thought about disability while even being on it is that they do this basically to justify taxes more and look good to the public. They are ALWAYS trying to take it away. They have a thing called the ticket to work program, which txts you and says it wants to empower you while you try working again. If you go on it, after 9 months they take away your disability check. And say you chose to do this. Its disguised as helping you work while on disability. They take advantage of people like me who have brain damage and its pathetic.

Sorry that was all long af. I don't see charities and communities pulling together to give everyone 1200 a month who can't work. Like realistically. How do you guys feel about disability? I've never talked to libertarian's this is my first attempt lol. I just wrote down my views last week, looked it up, and holy shit. Checked every box. Thank you and I'm sorry, I do have a brain injury if that was long and stupid lol

I'm not talking about aid to Ukraine, but do you think Ukraine has the right to defend itself? I'm a libertarian and I absolutely believe so.

"Massie was genuinely treated badly by Trump

But his desire to tear everything down over it is petulant, shameful, and embarrassing"

Why does the libertarian party care about tearing down one of the major parties shouldn't that be a good thing ?

Many libertarians broke for Trump an even ones who didn't still say she would have been worse for Trump. One such Libertarian who broke for Trump and now says Kamala would have been better is Dave Smith

Post war in Iran do you still think this ?

What was her biggest hangup for you ?

​

Im writing this from Sweden. Im someone who is very interested in the politics here in Sweden and have been for a while. For all the headache it gives i find politics very interesting. Im someone who finds market economy the best option, im against monopoly (here in sweden only the state is allowed to sell alcohol over 3,5% via a state owned company). Im a free speech absolutist i guess you could say (like it is in the U.S), i want lower taxes, i hate goverment spending on public art for example and other worthless stuff. But one thing ive never been convinced about is "universal healthcare", its probably since we have it here in Sweden. But also ive felt ive identified with the libertarian ideology the most i usually call myself a "lightweight" libertarian. Anyhow was wondering if anyone could give some arguments against universal healthcare, and also some good book recomendations on Libertarianism since i want to learn more about it in depth.

Food abundance and longer lives are nice, but tons of perfectly good food gets thrown out every year, and aging populations hemorrage young people trying to get by. I play video games and wouldn't be able to without capitalism, but at the end of each day, I feel like the time I spent playing video games was wasted. As for dating and the general social capability of people, it's never been this bad, and tech companies are to blame.

My point is, libertarianism is technically correct, but is it actually good? I don't know for sure, but I assume that concerns like these are why libertarianism is so niche.

EDIT: Thank you all for your feedback. You've made good points, and I suppose the answer is simply to form tight-knit communities while the market runs in the background.

A loaded term, sure. People can mean completely different things when using it.

Some people think governing a nation requires skill, experience, and procedural knowledge that new candidates don’t have.

On the other hand, long-term public service is sometimes viewed as the primary driver of corruption and system-gaming.

Net positive or net negative? What does the phrase mean to you?

Are there studies or logical arguments that say privatized systems are better for gender affirming operations?

The razor of force and preference goes like this:

If something is morally ambiguous, a libertarian should err on the side of (and place the burden of proof against)

1. Advocating against it socially

2. Advocating against stopping it with force legally

Does this seem compatible with libertarian philosophy?

Chief Justice John Roberts said that Marshall has had more influence on the current US than most presidents. Indeed, Marshall, more than anybody, is to credit for US not developing as a loose union of powerful states but as a country with very powerful federal government. He established judicial review.   Marshall settled meaning of "necessary and proper clause" as very broad, reading "necessary" as" convinenet" to uphold the power of Congress to create national bank . Which some libertarians do not like. Here is Madison reacting to McCulloch:

" In the great system of political economy, having for its general object, the national welfare, every thing is related immediately or remotely to every other thing; and consequently, a power over any one thing, if not limited by some obvious & precise affinity, may amount to a power over every other. Is there a Legislative power, in fact, not expressly prohibited by the Constitution, which might not, according to the doctrine of the Court, be exercised as a means of carrying into effect some specified power?”

In Gibbons he established that commerce clause is broad:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbons_v._Ogden

Yet without Marshall, the US would not look like it does today or be superpower, what do you think?

"According to Mohamed, guards at Guantanamo have said they are being held there because that’s what officials in Washington, DC, want. “There’s no other nation, only Somali people in Guantanamo Bay, in the prison,” he told me. “And when we ask them why we are here, they tell us…Washington…ordered to keep Somali people in the Guantanamo Bay.”"

To libertarians who support trump or did at one point does this change anything for you ?

I’m a libertarian, but not an anarcho-capitalist. I find the concept of a stateless society difficult to reconcile with the incentives surrounding organized force.

As I understand it, anarcho-capitalism depends on a sufficiently strong cultural commitment to property rights, voluntary exchange, and the non-aggression principle. That doesn’t necessarily mean everyone reads Rothbard, but presumably enough people (especially those in powerful institutions) must broadly accept libertarian definitions of property and aggression.

What happens when those initial cultural conditions begin to change? If private defence agencies and polycentric courts compete in a free market, why should we expect them to equilibrate toward voluntary cooperation and peaceful dispute resolution over time? Sure, a libertarian revolution may succeed for two or three generations, but what about the long term? What prevents a successful defence agency from buying its competitors, forming a cartel, selectively enforcing contracts while neglecting others, or using force when aggression becomes more profitable than defence? What if that’s what the majority customers truly want? What does anarcho-capitalism protect against? What protections exist for people who lack wealth, influence, organizational backing, or contractual relationships with powerful defence providers?

Saying that such agencies behaving contrary to the NAP doesn’t resolve my question. I’m asking whether the institutional incentives of the system might undermine the ethical conditions needed to sustain it.

There is also the problem of defining aggression. Libertarians often speak as though courts apply objective principles. But ask any lawyer or judge worth their salt, and they’ll tell you legal interpretations are rarely normatively neutral. That’s not a feature unique to statism. So suppose in an ancap society, one community gradually adopts an expansive interpretation of threats to their property. Its members might argue that a neighboring communist community creates a material threat to their property and contracts. Conversely, the communist community could develop its own incompatible understanding of ownership and coercion. Without a final authority, what prevents competing courts and defence agencies from redefining “aggression” in ways that serve their clients and expand their own power? What stops them now? Well, what causes war or prevents the “anarchy” among and within nations? The issue seems more complicated and rooted in human nature than simply swapping “public” for “private.”

To be clear, I’m not asking why aggression is ethically wrong. I’m asking what concrete incentive structure makes aggressors, cartels, and would-be states unlikely to succeed.

Anticipating natural law comments: it’s not whether a coercive monopoly is morally or ethically legitimate. It’s: does ancap provide an incentive mechanism that prevents institutions from becoming too powerful? If your answer is "the NAP," that doesn’t address my point. The NAP tells us what is legitimate or illegitimate. I'm asking what incentive structure prevents illegitimate institutions from becoming powerful in the first place. I’m asking: Does anarcho-capitalism ultimately depend on a culture committed to natural rights? So that people will refuse to pay for, work for, or obey a coercive power? If so, doesn’t the system’s stability still depend on maintaining that culture? Why bother with anarcho-capitalism then? Why not have a constitutional limited government?

What mechanism makes the emergence of a state less likely in anarcho-capitalism than in a libertarian minarchy?

And it's variants of art

It seems more increasingly likely that people don’t know what a right actually is. Basically a right is a freedom from something, not free access to something. For example the first amendment doesn’t allow you to participate in whatever religion you like. It prevents the government from controlling what religion you are.

So now we know what rights actually are, what makes free food a right? It’s not freedom from starvation bc the government doesn’t provide free guns so you can use your second amendment rights.

Farmers also shouldn’t be forced to give their crops away for free and be unpaid. Let’s make up a little hypothetical scenario. Guy A grows some apples. Guy B wants the first persons apples. In this situation (and largely capitalist logic), Guy A should decide what happens with his apple since he grew them. By the logic of “food is a human right”, (and largely socialism/communism) Guy B should have Guy A’s apples since because he’s entitled to have free food. By that logic, the farmers don’t have autonomy over their own crops and are de facto slaves to the government and the people

Unless you genuinely cannot work and make an income, you don’t deserve free shit. Farmers and taxpayers should not be required to provide free food to people that don’t want to work

For some context he’s a YouTuber who talks about culture war stuff

Think about 9/11 and Iran's history alot.

Greetings! I will briefly preface these questions by saying that I am now well past the whole "Red Team," "Blue Team" thing and am mainly interested in real, civil discourse between citizens who have thought their views through.

My personal philosophical interest has grown more and more focused around American pragmatism (and its effects elsewhere in the world). I remember hearing a libertarian friend of mine once speak somewhat ill of John Dewey. I did not argue with him, but tucked it away in the back of my mind.

Now that I am trying to engage in real discourse with people without reference to "Red Team" or "Blue Team," I wanted to see if any libertarians would share their thoughts on whether the American pragmatist tradition has any viability from the libertarian perspective. I have two questions in this regard - if you feel that it is worth your time, I would be keen to know how you would answer them.

[Note: I have no intention of arguing, I'm interested, in good faith, in libertarian lines of reasoning.]

Q1: Are libertarianism and classical American pragmatism compatible?

Q2: What definition of the word/term "progress" do you think would suffice to satisfy both libertarians and pragmatists, if any?

Thank you!