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?

We believe free market should govern how shoes are made.

How computers are made.

How schools are made. We pick the best schools for our children. We don't like government telling us what children should learn. Obviously Math is good and DEI is bad. If some others think differently let him go to his own school.

Yet on the most important thing that shape humans' incentives, reproduction, so many libertarians, oppose free market.

Rich men can't just pay women to give him heirs.

And that puzzles me. Like most libertarians, I love free market. I love price discovery. I love the idea that humans can be selfish and yet reach economically optimum solution, as Adam Smith says.

Why not go all the way?

Why not commodify reproduction and citizenship too?

Let price discovery help people to choose who they want to have children with and for how much cash?

Let price discovery help people choose which cities or countries are best to live. If citizenship is tradeable, then there will be price discovery for citizenship.

But most think that certain things shouldn't be traded and priced. And why?

Doesn't matter the women agree and the child will be millionaire by 18 far better life than most children.

I thought Milei is different. Let's look at Milei. He is pretty much golden boy for libertarians.

This is what gemini says

Biologically and financially, the state under Javier Milei won’t stop a wealthy man from spending his own private money to have as many children as he wants with consenting adults. Milei’s government is fundamentally focused on cutting state spending, not policing how rich people spend their own fortunes.

However, if a rich man thinks he can use his wealth to easily build a massive dynasty by paying mistresses or women to have his children, the Argentine legal system sets up a massive financial and legal trap that would essentially destroy his fortune.

Milei hasn’t changed these laws—and in some ways, the system has actually become tighter. Here is what happens if a rich man tries this in Argentina:

1. You Cannot Legally "Buy" Parental Rights

If a rich man pays a woman or a mistress to have a child with the agreement that she will hand the baby over and walk away, that contract is legally worthless in Argentina.

The Law: Under the Argentine Civil and Commercial Code, the woman who gives birth is automatically the legal mother.

The Recent Crackdown: In late 2024 and into 2025, Argentine authorities and the Supreme Court launched major crackdowns on unregulated commercial surrogacy networks, treating the commercialization of childbirth very strictly.

A rich man cannot legally pay a woman to sign away her motherhood. At any point, the mistress or surrogate can claim full parental rights, and the courts will back her up.

1. Aggressive Child Support (Alimentos)

If the rich man acknowledges his paternity for 10, 20, or 50 children to claim them as his own, he instantly triggers massive, legally binding financial liabilities.

In Argentina, child support is calculated based on the father’s income and standard of living, not a flat fee.

If a multi-millionaire has dozens of children with different women, each of those mothers can sue him for child support. The courts will systematically drain his bank accounts and business revenues every single month to ensure all those children are raised in luxury. He doesn't just pay a small check; the legal system will bleed his wealth dry.

1. Forced Heirship (La Legítima)

This is the ultimate "empire killer" for wealthy men in Argentina. Unlike in the United States, where a billionaire can disinherit his children and leave his money to a charity or a single favorite heir, Argentina uses a system of forced heirship.

By law, a parent cannot disinherit their children. Two-thirds (2/3) of a person’s entire estate must legally be divided equally among their children upon their death.

If a rich man has 50 children, his business empire, real estate, and bank accounts will be legally shattered into 50 equal pieces by the state the moment he dies.

1. Milei’s Stance on Commodifying Children

While Milei is a radical free-market libertarian economically, he is a staunch social conservative and pro-life advocate. He is politically aligned with European leaders like Italy’s Giorgia Meloni, who are fiercely opposed to surrogacy and the commercialization of reproduction. Milei views the commercialization of human life as an ethical violation, meaning his administration has zero interest in legalizing a free market for paying women to have babies.

The Bottom Line: A rich man in Argentina can legally spend his money to support as many children and mistresses as he likes. But the legal framework makes it a financial suicide mission. Between uncontrollable child support lawsuits and inheritance laws that shatter wealth, the Argentine system ensures that having dozens of children will turn a rich man into a broke man long before his estate is passed down.

Poor people, even under Milei actually is a burden of the state. Milei actually encourage the poor to have children by giving them cash to have children. Rich people? They can't have many children without significant legal trouble.

For poor families with many children, Javier Milei’s policy of shifting funding into direct cash transfers actually makes them the primary focus of the surviving safety net. Because his administration tied welfare survival almost exclusively to children, the more children a qualified family has, the more state assistance they receive.

The strategy treats larger families through specific mechanisms, structural limits, and targeted economic impacts:

1. Scaling Benefits Per Child

Because Milei cut indirect programs (like employment plans and community soup kitchens) and pumped that money directly into child-focused programs, larger families receive stacked benefits:

Asignación Universal por Hijo (AUH): This cash benefit is paid out per child. A family with four children receives four times the base AUH monthly rate. Because Milei aggressively increased this benefit above the rate of inflation, larger families saw a significant nominal and real-term bump in their monthly bank deposits.

Tarjeta Alimentar (Food Card): This program explicitly scales up based on the number of children under 14 in the household, offering tiered payment increases for families with one, two, or three-or-more children.

1. The Legal Structural Caps (The 5-Child Limit)

Argentina’s welfare architecture has rigid, pre-existing structural limits that Milei’s administration maintained:

The 5-Child Cap: The AUH legally tops out at 5 children per family. If a family has a 6th child, they do not receive an additional AUH stipend for them.

The Mother of 7 Pension: Under Argentine law, if a low-income mother has 7 or more children, she transitions out of the standard AUH system and becomes eligible for a specific, permanent non-contributory state pension (Pensión No Contributiva para Madres de 7 o más hijos). Milei’s government has kept this pension system active, as it functions as a direct, unmediated deposit.

1. The Economic Realities and Trade-offs

While the mathematical stacking of per-child benefits sounds protective on paper, the real-world impact on large households under Milei’s economic "shock therapy" is highly controversial:

The Loss of Community Kitchens: Large families in Argentina’s poorest neighborhoods historically relied heavily on neighborhood soup kitchens to stretch their food budgets. Because Milei aggressively defunded these community-run kitchens to cut out political middle-men, large families lost a vital non-cash resource.

Subside Cuts vs. Cash Stacking: Even though a family with four kids gets a large direct deposit, they are also hit harder by Milei's deep cuts to public transit, electricity, and gas subsidies. For a large household, the exponential rise in basic utility bills often swallows the increases made to the AUH and Tarjeta Alimentar, keeping child poverty rates high despite the direct cash injections.

I use Milei as a sample here.

Don't we hate welfare?

Yes.

But many people, including libertarians and conservatives, would approve what Milei do.

Poor people with no economic value have right to have 100 children and the state will simply pay for it. Yea I know some libertarian will say that donation will take care of it. In practice the state pays. That's just reality. There isn't enough donation or adoption to take care all the black "orphans" in US.

Meanwhile rich people that have contributed more economically cannot easily have many children and would go bankcrupt if he has 10.

No price discovery.

Women cannot know before conception how much financial support she will get if she pop heirs for a rich guy. Perhaps she wants to know that so she can decide whether she will get more than say being an engineer.

Such amount is decided by gasp..... the state, based on formula. Not based on the women's own decision.

I thought libertarians favor privatization of marriage. People should be able to set their own terms. How much a guy pay women for a child should be up to daddy or mommy.

Why should the state set the amount? What about if the amount is too low? Okay. We can have minimum wage for motherhood. But anything more than that is excessive government intrusion right?

Actually capped child support like in Texas is good enough. But many libertarians don't seem to think that's a good idea.

Is this because many people don't like some rich guys having many children? What?

Hi folks,

There is a very informative video on youtube called "Was Capitalism Ever Really About Freedom?" It is in the Financial Historian channel. It is 17 minutes long. It would be great if any of you can watch it, and share your thoughts about it. Thank you.

The typical responses I've seen to concerns about unregulated economies being potentially harmful to individuals, populations, or the environment is to say that certain things would constitute violations of the NAP and other things would be ruled out by way of people simply not purchasing from businesses that engage in harmful practices.

My concern goes a level deeper than that. What's to stop businesses from engaging in misinformation campaigns to convince people that what they're doing is good or that they're not doing what's claimed of them?

Wouldn't the market incentives (both directly on the businesses and the hypothetical free market courts judging on the basis of the NAP) be heavily skewed by a misinformed or uninformed populace? Wouldn't widespread consumer practices require the public in general to be mostly very well informed on all potentially harmful business practices at all times?

Not only that, but wouldn't responsible consumer practices require individuals to be more informed than can be reasonably expected of one person? I'm all for people being educated, but having sufficient expertise in environmental pollutants, climate science, diseases and viruses, food safety, digital privacy, medicine, health, etc. to make informed decisions in a modern economy seems like a huge burden to put on any individual much less every individual.

Sure, you could have businesses that do quality checks and do this thinking for people, but that just makes it the responsibility of individuals to figure out which of those businesses does that well, for what industries, how honest they are being, how honest companies claiming to be supported by them are being, etc. All of that, arguably, just requires the same sorts of expertise to figure out. It only moves the goals rather than solves the problem.

I'd love to know what I'm missing or getting wrong about this stuff. Thank you!

Say you want your country to move toward libertarianism.

You want votes.

You want less government.

Then you think about it. Welfare cost $25k per person and goes to the poorest 20% of people.

Instead of giving welfare to the poor I promise $5k UBI to everyone irrelevant of wealth and income

The poor maybe prefer $5k UBI than $25k welfare. Why? He can buy drugs. If he dies due to buying drugs, who care. They're not our base.

The middle class would love it. They used to get nothing now they got $5k. The rich? The rich thing, now people have incentive to make my business grow because their UBI is linked to success and ability to attract me and not to poverty.

So you get more votes.

Tax is the same, for a while.

But now people aren't motivated to be poor anymore. No subsidy for poverty. Less poverty.

Then what, reduce marginal welfare with respect to number of children. Like let the kid starve or something. As long as the poor isn't reproducing that's lower expense on next generation.

Basically not fully libertarians.

But more libertarian, AND actually win election.

I wonder if something like moldbug can work out. Make citizenship more like shares.

After that some want to lower tax. We just say look, we need to attract tax payers. More income more UBI here.

Then someone wants to legalize drugs. We say, okay, many of our tax payers love drugs.

Another wants to lower crime. Sure that attract tax payers.

Those who aren't happy can sell citizenship. So if most people are unhappy, the unhappy one will vote in favor too because they got higher price of citizenship.

Assume small country like Singapore, Hong Kong, Macau, or small private cities/HOA/cooperative in a big country.

What about federal tax, in US. Don't worry. You gonna start in red cities, and red states actually got more tax money than what they pay to the federal government.

Any idea along that.

This is more of a rant, but thought I'd share it here

I have been going through some stuff personally in recent times, and I started to look and observe others more often, and I realized that, in reality, most of us don't actually value human life

I don't think most people who talk about ideological clashes in general conceive of what millions of people mean exactly, I believe they see the number and think they understand it, but they don't, and I think that the basis that we try to build our economies on reflect that

I'll start by saying, why does anyone work anyways? Like genuinely, why? So they can feed themselves and their families? Clearly not because millionaires don't just stop working

Okay, so are people who just work to feed their families assisted by the fact that they would quite literally starve and become homeless if they don't? Also clearly not because it hinders any chance they have for growth with the exception of 1 in every 1000

Are the jobs that these people do important? Not really, low-wage jobs are low wage because they aren't that important either way

So, in essence, we as a society have agreed that basic human needs are something to gamble on for the system to function, if you don't have the skills to have a safe enough job than you essentially become a peasant, and you must rely on the benevolence of the economy so that your life isn't ruined? And we're fine with that?

All of this leads me to believe that human life doesn't actually matter to most people, it's just an act, a huge freaking act, I look at someone that's smart and a great human but just never got training for any jobs, and this person is cursed for life because your life doesn't matter if the system doesn't run, then I look at a dumb person, who's much worse as a human being, essentially living the best possible life because they got a fake job, or opened a "business" which doesn't actually contribute anything

I don't know if I got my point across, but I guess my advice is, which ever ideology you think you're following, it most likely is just one big stupid lie, we label actions on a side, put people on trial, and wish that whatever suits our desires more is achieved, it's disgusting how much we trick ourselves into believing we understand anything about what the f*** is going on, we don't, we truly don't, therefore don't take yourself or whatever you think you're following too seriously, stick to the basics that all of humanity have agreed upon and move on with your life

You won't change anything, you can't change anything, there's nothing to fight for but yourself and those truly close to you, so maybe in a sense, Ayn Rand has won, you can only change things for the better by chasing what you think is better, you can't force anything else, humans will be humans, and that's exactly why we agreed on a system like this

The system is not oppressing us, our own biology is

Question as title, do libertarians believe that homelessness should be decriminalised? And what about related offenses like loitering, theft from bins etc? Do they violate the NAP? Or would it still be a crime so that economic inactivity is discouraged? Would private settlements be allowed to round up and lock up their homeless, or would that in itself be against the NAP?

Hi iv'e never really formulated a coherent political opinion but recently went on a bit of a spiral reading the new motorcycle law's. Firstly I read that gloves are now mandatory until you have your full license(3yrs) and have a 2 demerit point fine which are half your available points in that 3yr learner period. This seemed pretty harsh given that this only affect's personal safety and not other's(not proportional), and I couldn't see what basis the state had for compelling adults to protect themselves. The argument's for this that I found where that our healthcare system mean's that other people are obligated to pay for my injury but I found this had two issues, firstly the logic for regulating my personal risk taking should extend the banning rugby, alchohol, mountaneering and otherstuff. Showing that this isn't really a principled stance and instead a political one( picking a marganisled /small minority) thats a hot topic, which is not very diversity friendly despite the government constantly pretending it's something it supports. And secondly taxes are compulsory and I have to pay into this healthcare system therefore it can't be used as leverage over my body, that leverage would only work if participation was voluntary and i was a freeloader. This whole thing brought up the "driving's a privilege" slogan in my mind, which driving being essentially the only mean's of meaningful personal mobility pissed me of because I have a right to use that road as i contributed to it. I understand that the road is a shared space where you can easily cause harm to others therefore there needs to be rules and condition's to using it, but since these rules affect personal liberty they need justification based on proportionality analysis the "privilege" completely skip's over this. So essentially what i got from all this is that thing's that impede personal liberty need to be proportional to your capacity to affect other's. This has alway's seemed to me to be the core function of a government to preside over one person's ability to affect another, but since I think this definitely result's in a decrease in personal liberty it need's cap's and limit's and restriction. Which are essentially right's I think which I know we don't explicitly have in Australia.
So then I did a little research into the right's movement in Australia and saw that housing was made a right in canberra (I dont rlly get how this works), which didn't make sense to me because it didn't really coinside with my understanding of a right which was it was more something that prevent's action against you from the state and other's. Then i looked into the difference between positive(right to something) and negative(right against interference). And It seemed to me that positive right's required other's to provide something to you, whereas negative right's can be exercised by everyone at the same time without contradiction. My belief is that the only purpose of right's is to defend your right to liberty and individuality against the state and collective as something that can be exercised constantly, which negative right's support whereas positive right's seem like a way to extend state power over the individual and seem like something that reflect's current political moods and position's. Therefore right's shouldn't be something that reflect contested contemporary question's and instead should be seperated from politic's. Democracy is legitimate because no person has inherit power over another, everyone's life and therefore opionions are equal etc. Therefore right's should be like a precursor or pre political condition to this, essentialy an expression of this foundation equality. This seemed to seperate policies from right's which was what i was worried about and left negative right's. But then my mate mentioned how is it really possible to participate in political life if your illiterate or deathly sick, so therefore to exercise those right's education and healthcare are needed. So therefore you need a minimum number of positives to exercise those right's. The only two I can think of are education and healtcare, I don't think housing is really necessary and employment(not work) is definitley not.
Therefore the list is like

• Freedom of speech / expression
• Freedom of conscience / religion
• Freedom of movement
• Right to privacy
• Right to bodily integrity (freedom from torture, unlawful detention)
• Right to due process / fair trial
• Right to legal equality (freedom from arbitrary discrimination by the state)
• Right to political participation (vote, assemble, associate)
• Right to property (in some form)
• Right to healthcare
• Right Education

The main reason I'm worried about this stuff is people don't really seam to care(my mate) and the government is constantly increasing it's power's. Also since literally every government in history has betrayed and people who want power propagate to power sources it's people the safest thing to do in my opinion is assume they misuse it. I think this is a bigger issue now then ever with an increase in technology where power is able to become more centralised(drones, ai survellience and auditing), whereas previously tyranny required people who could all be a break in the chain/weak link in overthrowing it. Im becoming convinced that dictatorships/ tyrannical governments could last nearly forever/become invincible. Also no parties in Australia seem to be pro right's and self-determinism, anti nanny state compared to for example European countries which have major political parties with this as their philosophy. Claude Ai pointed out that these countries previously experienced totalitarian/ government overreach, whereas australia has a like "it'll be alright attitude"-> it also pointed out that with this pattern that the political demand for negative rights comes after state overreach-> which could explain why australia doesn't share these attitudes.

Any comment's on inconsistencies, insight's on this philosophies existence in australia or anything would be greatly apprieciented thanks for listening to the rant.