Why do Republicans seem to think they are owed support from Libertarians?

[OSR stands with Israel]

While I don’t disagree , I will point out Reagan was the most libertarian president we have had economically since the 1920s. He pretty much replaced the old economic consensus with a far more libertarian friendly consensus called “neoliberalism”

[OSR stands with Israel]

The libertarian and conservative mindsets are radically different, and I think the only reason they are lumped together by so many people is because guns and Obamacare were such big issues in the early 2010s, and they are issues where conservatives and libertarians tended to agree. Libertarians believe economic efficiency is an end in itself - I don't, and I think letting unrestrained market forces reach whatever outcome they coalesce on is a horrible idea that leads to horrible outcomes, which is precisely why I support curbs on immigration, oppose unrestricted free trade, support zoning laws, etc.

But I actually think that libertarians who are more neoliberal than paleoconservative, which is most of them, belong more in the Dems than the GOP. Actual libertarians, as opposed to conservatives who like weed and have no problem with gays, are such a tiny voting bloc that it's not worth conceding so many core principles to win them over. Like PiT, I do respect them for their principled stands against foreign wars though.

This is false as the GOP in many ways is more libertarian than it was in the Bush years by far. It is no accident Rand Paul who very much disliked Bush/Cheney is a huge fan of Trump and another example of this is the biggest donor for the "new populist right" and that is Peter Thiel. Peter Thiel identified as a libertarian from the Bush years on and only really joined the GOP from 2016 onwards and has played a huge role in funding "Trumpist" candidates this time. The group of libertarians these people represent played a huge role in the Ron Paul candidacy of 2008/2012 and they are the anti government anti institution types who since Trump have flocked to the GOP in droves.

Now the Libertarians who were economically conservative but socially liberal yes have joined the dems but keep in mind the reason they supported Libertarians more from the mid 2000s to mid 2010s is in those days if you wanted a party who was anti interventionism the only party you could find that from were the Libertarians and  Ron Paul. As the war on terror became less and less an issue in politics both these groups of libertarians basically flocked back to the party that fit them and thats what happened but that does not make the GOP less libertarian today at all.

Libertarianism means more than just "Economically Conservative Socially Liberal" like the political compass makes it out to be cause thats just false.


Also the Democrats are really not neoliberal at all today in the way the term is actually defined and not the way it has been defined since 2016.

[OSR stands with Israel]

The libertarian and conservative mindsets are radically different, and I think the only reason they are lumped together by so many people is because guns and Obamacare were such big issues in the early 2010s, and they are issues where conservatives and libertarians tended to agree. Libertarians believe economic efficiency is an end in itself - I don't, and I think letting unrestrained market forces reach whatever outcome they coalesce on is a horrible idea that leads to horrible outcomes, which is precisely why I support curbs on immigration, oppose unrestricted free trade, support zoning laws, etc.

But I actually think that libertarians who are more neoliberal than paleoconservative, which is most of them, belong more in the Dems than the GOP. Actual libertarians, as opposed to conservatives who like weed and have no problem with gays, are such a tiny voting bloc that it's not worth conceding so many core principles to win them over. Like PiT, I do respect them for their principled stands against foreign wars though.

This is false as the GOP in many ways is more libertarian than it was in the Bush years by far. It is no accident Rand Paul who very much disliked Bush/Cheney is a huge fan of Trump and another example of this is the biggest donor for the "new populist right" and that is Peter Thiel. Peter Thiel identified as a libertarian from the Bush years on and only really joined the GOP from 2016 onwards and has played a huge role in funding "Trumpist" candidates this time. The group of libertarians these people represent played a huge role in the Ron Paul candidacy of 2008/2012 and they are the anti government anti institution types who since Trump have flocked to the GOP in droves.

Now the Libertarians who were economically conservative but socially liberal yes have joined the dems but keep in mind the reason they supported Libertarians more from the mid 2000s to mid 2010s is in those days if you wanted a party who was anti interventionism the only party you could find that from were the Libertarians and  Ron Paul. As the war on terror became less and less an issue in politics both these groups of libertarians basically flocked back to the party that fit them and thats what happened but that does not make the GOP less libertarian today at all.

Libertarianism means more than just "Economically Conservative Socially Liberal" like the political compass makes it out to be cause thats just false.


Also the Democrats are really not neoliberal at all today in the way the term is actually defined and not the way it has been defined since 2016.

By neoliberal, I mean the way it's used by people on r/neoliberal, not the way it's used by leftists and tradcons. The Dems certainly aren't neoliberal in that sense, but libertarians with r/neoliberal sympathies are a hell of a lot closer to the Dems than the GOP nowadays.

I'll respond to the rest of your post later.

Sure but they are more “moderate liberals” than “neoliberals”

[OSR stands with Israel]

the responses from Republicans in this thread has made me like Republicans far less than I did before this thread.

why

[OSR stands with Israel]

Josh Hawley is not a paleoconservative. Neither is JD Vance. Both are just Elizabeth Warren if she didn't really go woke on gays. A Paleocon is someone who would have opposed FDR during the new deal and pretty much adored Robert A. Taft.

Do Josh Hawley and JD Vance support:

- Medicare for All

- A Wealth Tax

[OSR stands with Israel]

1. We live in an era right now where it's obvious Dem are a much bigger threat to liberty than the GOP. COVID lockdowns proved this. It's not comparable. You can see the difference in freedom by comparing California to Florida.

The last Republican president and current party leader openly asked an authoritarian regime to hack the opposing party, attempted to strongarm local elections officials into fabricating votes in his favor, withheld congressionally mandated aid from a foreign nation in order to get them to dig up dirt on his opponent, and orchestrated a violent riot that culminated in the country's highest elected officials fleeing for their lives through tunnels while their building was occupied by fascist homunculi in shaman costumes.

But the Democrats made you wear a piece of fabric on your face I'm sorry you had to go through that. poor baby

I mean being made to wear a rag on his face was a greater imposition upon his liberty than any of the above violations of the great electoral game.

There is no metric by which that is true.

Didn't you literally have in your sig for a while saying you oppose democracy.

[OSR stands with Israel]

3. When has any Democratic politician "used big tech" to censor anyone? You are talking about private companies, and they are free to deplatform anyone they choose. The only people who care about this are extremely online alt-righters who think that private companies should be required to provide them with a service, which is essentially socialism.

No this is wrong given they are given section 230 protections so yes companies who censor no longer should get them

[OSR stands with Israel]

3. When has any Democratic politician "used big tech" to censor anyone? You are talking about private companies, and they are free to deplatform anyone they choose. The only people who care about this are extremely online alt-righters who think that private companies should be required to provide them with a service, which is essentially socialism.

No this is wrong given they are given section 230 protections so yes companies who censor no longer should get them

So private companies must host certain speech or be subject to lawsuits? That is antithetical to the freedom of speech. The right does seem to enjoy making many exceptions to the free speech protections afforded by the First Amendment (except equating money with speech).

Section 230 protections literally gives them special protection from the law on the guise they really shouldn't be responsible for what others post on there. Well if you are censoring posts then I have no idea how you can continue to make that argument.

[OSR stands with Israel]

You speak as if the law is something that exists upon people instead of among them.

If we're talking about literally *99% of people wanting you dead or something, it's happening.  The "law" only has effect because it's broadly consistent with consensus (or at least majoritarian) standards and beliefs.  Whether or not something is "legal" is immaterial - no judge or police officer has the balls (or even the ability) to enforce something over the objections of 99% of everyone else.   

The mob can always take my freedoms with force if it comes to that. I just don't want them having any illusions about being able to do this "within the system."

1, Sending aid + supporting Ukraine joining Nato = provoking conflict. Better approach? No aid and no NATO bid.

Not going to read any further than this. Isolationism is even stupider than neocon interventionism, and anyone who thinks Russia should be allowed to pave through Ukraine without any hinderance from US foreign policy is a lover of oppression and totalitarianism. Biden has struck an excellent middle ground in his approach.

No this is wrong given they are given section 230 protections so yes companies who censor no longer should get them

This makes no sense.

1. I oppose Libertarian foreign policy but a core of libertarianism is isolationism or at most paleo-conservatism so if you oppose that I don't see how you can really call your self Libertarian Dule. I also think isolationism is stupid but thats why I am not a libertarian

2. Libertarians should be opposed to special exemptions from the law

3. You never addressed the core point I made earlier on your 40 years post and that is the neoliberal consensus Reagan ushered in made America more libertarian economically than it was before.

[OSR stands with Israel]

1. I oppose Libertarian foreign policy but a core of libertarianism is isolationism or at most paleo-conservatism so if you oppose that I don't see how you can really call your self Libertarian Dule. I also think isolationism is stupid but thats why I am not a libertarian

What's the point of making a thread about Libertarians when you aren't even with Libertarians on their biggest issue?

"I would advocate that which the Soviet Union fears above all else: economic boycott, I would advocate a blockade of Cuba and an economic boycott of Soviet Russia; and you would see both of those regimes collapse without the loss of a single American life." -Ayn Rand, the mother of libertarianism

Biden is using a more moderate version of this approach in his handling of modern Russia, and it is working. This might come as a shock to you guys, but libertarians generally don't love dictators and repressive authoritarian regimes!

They don’t support but libertarians are very much either isolationist or paleo conservative. So a libertarian approach to this would be an economic boycott but not sending arms to Ukraine .

Of course libertarians would be massively wrong here but what you support is not really libertarian at all here

[OSR stands with Israel]

While I don’t disagree , I will point out Reagan was the most libertarian president we have had economically since the 1920s. He pretty much replaced the old economic consensus with a far more libertarian friendly consensus called “neoliberalism”

Good thing Ronnie did it on a fiscally responsible budget!




This isn't a free market. It's crony capitalism.

Republicans constantly yammer on about how to prevent young people from falling to socialism while all they do in office is cut taxes for rich people, increase the deficit and debt, and then leave.

Meanwhile, Libertarians actually provide real solutions to problems.

The Republican solution to the housing crisis is to scream and whine and give boomers tax breaks to buy their fifth investment property (negative gearing). Compared to that, young people like socialist rent control.

Libertarians, on the other hand, provide reasonable solutions like... building more housing.

Republicans always manage to gut regulation for the financial sector but they never get around to zoning reform

I’d just point out real median income has gone up a lot and that imo is more important than income inequality



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States


As for life expectancy, keep in mind fast food got a lot cheaper here compared to the rest of the world as well . As for the debt , keep in mind that foreign policy plays a huge factor in that and I am not saying Reagan was libertarian at all when it came to that regard cause he absolutely was not .


On housing Red States do have far more lenient zoning laws than blue states which is why they are cheaper as well .
 

[OSR stands with Israel]

I don't think this thread is relevant. I don't see the GOP really caring for the Libertarian Party the way they did a decade ago or even 5-6 years ago. Most libertarians, if they vote, are in the GOP at this point for a variety of reasons. I would also argue the current LP is barely libertarian outside the Mises Caucus which really does nothing besides edgelording on twitter and ranting about the GOP-Trump era not being as good as it is.


As for your specific points.
1. Trump is the least War on Terror president we've had and arguably the best foreign policy president since Eisenhower.

2. Mises Caucus exists so this isn't true. The LP has no unity on cultural issues and if we are being honest, the people in power are closer to pat buchanan culturally than an idiot like gary johnson.

3. The LP really can't make up its mind on this. Either be a purist and advocate for it outright or make some concessions. If you do the latter, I don't see a reason to hate the GOP. Local republicans are doing a lot on drug policy and there's better infrastructure in the GOP to actually get things done. I also don't get why the LP makes drug legalization a big issue. Yes, i know the wod is bad, but a lot of the LP's concerns are more about being degenerates and less about getting people out of prison. That's an issue.

1. We live in an era right now where it's obvious Dem are a much bigger threat to liberty than the GOP. COVID lockdowns proved this. It's not comparable. You can see the difference in freedom by comparing California to Florida.

Dem politicians are a bunch of moronic losers who are constantly fighting and feuding with each other.

The GOP, on the other hand, has an active plan and actions to back it up with regards to banning abortion and curtailing gay rights, which are things that Libertarians mostly support.

On Abortion it depends on what libertarians you are talking about. The most iconic libertarian politician, Ron Paul, was anti abortion.

[OSR stands with Israel]

This thread confirms the death of the libertarian wing on atlas. Only 3 exist

Who are they?

jaichind, dead0man, and idk the 3rd

dead0man recommended Dule’s thread though.

To my knowledge, dead0man isn't invoking ayn rand to support biden's policy towards ukraine/russia

Do you have some kind of attention deficit disorder? You implied that libertarianism necessarily entailed a completely isolationist foreign policy, so I pointed out that the intellectual progenitors of libertarianism (including but not limited to Rand and Goldwater) endorsed much more hawkish approaches to foreign policy than I do. This completely disproves your point and if you had any self-awareness you would’ve dropped the subject by now.

Barry Goldwater was a conservative not a libertarian. He was a libertarian leaning conservative but still a conservative first

[OSR stands with Israel]

This thread confirms the death of the libertarian wing on atlas. Only 3 exist

Who are they?

jaichind, dead0man, and idk the 3rd

dead0man recommended Dule’s thread though.

To my knowledge, dead0man isn't invoking ayn rand to support biden's policy towards ukraine/russia

Do you have some kind of attention deficit disorder? You implied that libertarianism necessarily entailed a completely isolationist foreign policy, so I pointed out that the intellectual progenitors of libertarianism (including but not limited to Rand and Goldwater) endorsed much more hawkish approaches to foreign policy than I do. This completely disproves your point and if you had any self-awareness you would’ve dropped the subject by now.

Barry Goldwater was a conservative not a libertarian. He was a libertarian leaning conservative but still a conservative first

I'll be honest, I'm not really sure I understand why Barry Goldwater is "still a conservative first" while Ron Paul is "The most iconic libertarian politician".

Barry Goldwater’s book was literally “conscience of a conservative” and the fact is he moved the conservative wing of the Republican Party  in general way from isolationism/paleo Conservativism that defined that wing from the aftermath of WW1 to Robert Taft.

Though one area where he did disagree with conservative foreign policy later on  is he did seem to oppose reestablishing relations with China .

[OSR stands with Israel]

This thread confirms the death of the libertarian wing on atlas. Only 3 exist

Who are they?

jaichind, dead0man, and idk the 3rd

dead0man recommended Dule’s thread though.

To my knowledge, dead0man isn't invoking ayn rand to support biden's policy towards ukraine/russia

Do you have some kind of attention deficit disorder? You implied that libertarianism necessarily entailed a completely isolationist foreign policy, so I pointed out that the intellectual progenitors of libertarianism (including but not limited to Rand and Goldwater) endorsed much more hawkish approaches to foreign policy than I do. This completely disproves your point and if you had any self-awareness you would’ve dropped the subject by now.

Barry Goldwater was a conservative not a libertarian. He was a libertarian leaning conservative but still a conservative first

I'll be honest, I'm not really sure I understand why Barry Goldwater is "still a conservative first" while Ron Paul is "The most iconic libertarian politician".

Oh, that’s simple. It is a semantic distinction without a difference that exists in his head.

Foreign policy beliefs is a huge part in determining whether someone is libertarian or not

[OSR stands with Israel]

Foreign policy beliefs is a huge part in determining whether someone is libertarian or not

Not really. This is one of those areas where lovers of freedom can reasonably disagree. Modern libertarians are notoriously anti-interventionist only because the GOP's previous patron saint lied to the entire country in order to embroil us in an unjust oil war. Nonetheless, I generally oppose getting us involved in foreign conflict unless we are directly attacked, but that doesn't mean we can't sanction our enemies and provide aid to our allies. The idea that Biden's aid to Ukraine should be a make-or-break issue for libertarians is too silly to be worthy of further discussion.

I enjoy it when American weaponry sheds the blood of the foot soldiers of oppression and authoritarianism. I like it even more when American blood isn't shed in the process.

Barry Goldwater was in favor of the Vietnam War and also opposed reestablishing relations with China. Would either of these positions be compatible with a libertarian foreign policy