Fyi https://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2?ec=-1.63&soc=-6.51

I don't engage with people who can't make Good faith arguments, so I'm not going to engage with you anymore. I doubt you could even provide the definition of libertarian let alone discern between the different types. You are authoritarian whether you like it or not. I would highly suggest reading the definitions and having a well -rounded understanding of the political compass because it's clear that you do not. Take care and have a great time screaming into the void

I admitted that there is a non-religious argument to abortion. Most people's reasoning for being against abortion is based in religion and therefore from the first amendment there's a separation of church and state and I do not respect their opinions. I also said I do not believe the evidence is strong enough on the non-religious abortion stance to justify limiting people's rights. Just because I acknowledged it exist does not mean I think it's strong enough. In to be clear, where life begins is a philosophical question. All throughout history that has changed, some believe that conception, some believe at birth, some believe it's at fetus viability (which is where my belief is) don't try to intentionally misrepresent something because it makes you a bad faith actor. A cornerstone of being libertarian is being able to say hey. I believe something but I don't think it should be law. I have lots of personal beliefs that I wish were enacted, but I understand that that would be forcing others to live in the way I view the world and therefore I would never advocate for their policy. There are many people that are adamantly pro-life that do not support legislation restricting the rights of bodily autonomy. Their pro-life in their community and in their families and encourage people to take different choices. But because they're libertarians when it comes to policy, they would like to see the government not dictate their beliefs on others. The true libertarian stance Russia is not a world leader. Their only allies are the axis of resistance. The corruption has destroyed their military, and the world is doing just fine with all the sanctions against Russia. We do not need to be friendly with Russia. They have been America's enemy since the time of the Soviet Union and they will continue to be. Russia's relevancy has to do with them having nukes but we know they won't use them. Like I said, libertarian ideology would not make you have to go one way or another with supporting Ukraine so it's mostly irrelevant. Outside of Trump, admiring Putin I find it interesting that you talk about our allies in a positive light because Trump wants to leave NATO and abandon our allies. libertarian ideology has no stance on this really so it doesn't really matter what someone's opinion is on it, It just does not fit with Trump not being an enemy of America. Trump also is against a package that would secure the southern border because he does want to give a win to Biden. Who gives a fuck about giving going to somebody. If they're going to do something good then let them do it. Mike Johnson won't let bills go to the floor so the house can vote on them. Undermining democracy most likely because of Trump. Once again, you may personally like Ron and Trump and that is fine. But you cannot make any sort of argument that is viable under any scrutiny that they are libertarian. It's okay to be a little authoritarian. I disagree with you that that is the way forward western civilization but we can sort it out in the polls, People need to stop lying about who they actually are. Just like the libertarian subreddit needs to stop saying their libertarian. No libertarian would support the banning of books, Russia, being gay or anything else of those guys support. Remember politics is a political compass it's a combination of people being left and right while at the same time they can also be authoritarian or libertarian. I am a left leaning libertarian you by the sounds of it are a right leaning authoritarian. It's fine but just be yourself. I don't like the Democrats. I don't like republicans. I don't like the far left. I don't like the alt right. The support legislation that aligns with my world belief that libertarianism is the way. I'll also support legislation that limits people's rights. If there is incredibly strong evidence supporting that legislation (drunk driving, Labour laws, etc)

That's the Reddit admins but that cracked me up nonetheless

I admitted that there is a non-religious argument to abortion. Most people's reasoning for being against abortion is based in religion and therefore from the first amendment there's a separation of church and state and I do not respect their opinions. I also said I do not believe the evidence is strong enough on the non-religious abortion stance to justify limiting people's rights. Just because I acknowledged it exist does not mean I think it's strong enough. In to be clear, where life begins is a philosophical question. All throughout history that has changed, some believe that conception, some believe at birth, some believe it's at fetus viability (which is where my belief is) don't try to intentionally misrepresent something because it makes you a bad faith actor. A cornerstone of being libertarian is being able to say hey. I believe something but I don't think it should be law. I have lots of personal beliefs that I wish were enacted, but I understand that that would be forcing others to live in the way I view the world and therefore I would never advocate for their policy. There are many people that are adamantly pro-life that do not support legislation restricting the rights of bodily autonomy. Their pro-life in their community and in their families and encourage people to take different choices. But because they're libertarians when it comes to policy, they would like to see the government not dictate their beliefs on others. The true libertarian stance Russia is not a world leader. Their only allies are the axis of resistance. The corruption has destroyed their military, and the world is doing just fine with all the sanctions against Russia. We do not need to be friendly with Russia. They have been America's enemy since the time of the Soviet Union and they will continue to be. Russia's relevancy has to do with them having nukes but we know they won't use them. Like I said, libertarian ideology would not make you have to go one way or another with supporting Ukraine so it's mostly irrelevant. Outside of Trump, admiring Putin I find it interesting that you talk about our allies in a positive light because Trump wants to leave NATO and abandon our allies. libertarian ideology has no stance on this really so it doesn't really matter what someone's opinion is on it, It just does not fit with Trump not being an enemy of America. Trump also is against a package that would secure the southern border because he does want to give a win to Biden. Who gives a fuck about giving going to somebody. If they're going to do something good then let them do it. Mike Johnson won't let bills go to the floor so the house can vote on them. Undermining democracy most likely because of Trump. Once again, you may personally like Ron and Trump and that is fine. But you cannot make any sort of argument that is viable under any scrutiny that they are libertarian. It's okay to be a little authoritarian. I disagree with you that that is the way forward western civilization but we can sort it out in the polls, People need to stop lying about who they actually are. Just like the libertarian subreddit needs to stop saying their libertarian. No libertarian would support the banning of books, Russia, being gay or anything else of those guys support. Remember politics is a political compass it's a combination of people being left and right while at the same time they can also be authoritarian or libertarian. I am a left leaning libertarian you by the sounds of it are a right leaning authoritarian. It's fine but just be yourself. I don't like the Democrats. I don't like republicans. I don't like the far left. I don't like the alt right. The support legislation that aligns with my world belief that libertarianism is the way. I'll also support legislation that limits people's rights. If there is incredibly strong evidence supporting that legislation (drunk driving, Labour laws, etc)

From a libertarian perspective, you absolutely can and suggesting anything otherwise is insanity. You can say that you like them, but you cannot say that they are libertarians, end of story. Trump has never been a libertarian, both of them want to do an abortion ban (Yes, I know there's a libertarian argument that is non-religious against abortion, although I don't think the evidence is strong enough to support removing people's rights) Ron's been fighting private companies because they're saying things that he doesn't like in court wasting taxpayer dollars on doing so. He's also past very questionable legislation with the don't say gay and the book bans. You agree that Trump's rhetoric about Russia has been very dangerous. Russia is one of the most authoritarian countries in the world. You can't speak like that as a libertarian, there's just no room for admiring Russia as a libertarian. Once again, it's okay to say that you like them and you want them to lead America. That is fine. You cannot with any good faith argument claim their libertarian which is why in a libertarian subreddit. I said they should be on the list because they are both the enemies of libertarian in America. I'm not saying the others don't belong. I'm saying they 100% belong probably at the top Edit: Russia literally just killed their political opponent a few days ago. Any one supporting Russia or saying nice things about Russia in regards to the political system is authoritarian full stop. The United States supporting Ukraine in my opinion is the United States fighting Russia without risking American lives, we're giving them our old stock of weapons that we are going to have to pay to dismantle. Anyways, it's fine in my opinion, but I understand that people could have different opinions about that

Ron is, Trump isn't so much he'd much rather just give everything to Putin he wants. But at the end of the day, if you're on a libertarian subreddit and you're talking about enemies of the states and you don't include Ron and Trump, you are not a libertarian. They are authoritarian as fuck

I would agree with you on the second amendment but not on the 1st. And I've made many comments about how a lot of southern Republicans are pushing for book bands and all sorts of stuff. And when you apply the same logic to the first amendment as we do with the second amendment then they must also support gun bans as well so it's illogical fallacy on the Republicans part . With private ownership companies get the decide who can and can't use their platform so Trump being banned on everything has nothing to do with the first amendment. In the same reason how the libertarian mods can ban me but it can still be bullshit and I can call them out for that and they can still be allowed to ban me. When it comes to gay rights and people doing what they want to do in their own bedroom libertarians much more aligned with Democrats in that regard. Who the fuck cares, what other people do in the privacy of their own home or in their own lives. If they're not hurting anybody then it should not matter and not supporting authoritarian in nature. So it's confusing when libertarians can be left or right. It's just as libertarians. We support less legislation in control over our lives. Voting for someone that wants to restrict your ability to be gay and talk about it is authoritarian in nature and no libertarian would vote for them. Anyone that does is not a libertarian because they like authoritarian policies

Interesting thing is all the Republicans on the list Trump has classified as RHINOS. I think it's pretty apparent that this post was made by MAGA Republicans who support Russia. Not by libertarians therefore It has no business being on a libertarian subreddit and I shouldn't be banned for pointing out how it doesn't include the most authoritarian people in American politics

I don't even know how to do that

Barack Obama, Liz Cheney and George Bush are currently in power?

Fake libertarians do I agree. I understand Republicans are trying to hijack the term but there's no other term I can use to describe my politics besides left leading libertarian

The only person I would remove is Liz the rest probably belong to some degree. But Ron and definitely Trump belong at the top they are definitely enemies of democracy and specifically libertarians. From their policies to their rhetoric, they are against the libertarian way of life. I'm not going to defend the alt left because in my eyes they are almost as bad as the alt right! Which for some crazy reason is defending Putin's Russia, one of the most Authoritarian governments out there.

Thats a straw man argument, those are not political parties and you know it, your ignorance is showing. No one is going to feed you, ya troll. Go home.

You're right, I misspoke there. There's definitely a gradient. And Trump flirting the line is what made me use that choice of words. But you're absolutely correct. Johnson is more so non-libertarian and Ron is somewhere between the two

I wasn't even asking for even division, I was pointing out how the libertarian threats to the country. To say that Liz Cheney and Barack Obama are currently more of a threat than Donald Trump. Ron DeSantis and Mike Johnson is delusional. Barack Obama has no power barely has any influence The people I listed all have extremely authoritarian stances and are very vocal about it. I do not need to list out all the things that they say that is authoritarian because the people that will deny it can't be convinced anyways is there not libertarians and they don't live in a fact-based world. They are the real threats to Western democracy but specifically libertarianism. The posting that Putin's not a threat is also hilarious given the timing of everything, especially today. Our enemy is in Russia, they are in China they are in North Korea, and Iran. The government doesn't need to do anything about it as long as they stay in their countries and don't attack our allies. Oh shit! They're not doing that so they're active enemies and they have to be addressed. I also want to point out I'm specifically not defending people like Hillary Clinton in the others that are on the list. They do belong on that list but again the three I mentioned I think rank one, two and three.

Yep, some libertarians I know don't even think I'm a libertarian because I will support additional legislation as long as it is fact-based and just It's justified in having a functional society (like drunk driving). If the government ever decided to tackle price gouging and absorbent corporate profits, depending on how the laws were written, I could be in support of that as I see my taxes going through the roof when my generation retires with low homeownership and abysmal savings and with the insane amount of price gouging from corporate companies.

Right. I think traditional libertarians need a home

You say that as if I'm not a libertarian. But a few comments that describe exactly how I view the world and anyone reading it. It's clear that I'm a classical libertarian. Definitely not an American libertarian because it seems like they don't believe in liberty

Do you have any subreddits that you would recommend?

There's no way that should come across as a troll because it's true. They're anti-libertarian. I guess I mistakened that subreddit for a true libertarian subreddit

What are they even moderate a subreddit? They should just have a blog on the internet where they yelling to the void

Is Cheney really a Republican? She definitely was a Republican but I'm pretty sure, she'd be considered a Democrat, maybe even bush with how far right the Republicans have gone. Joke aside, it really does seem like they skipped the three most authoritarian republicans and through the more libertarian Republicans on it, hence my comment. Because it was banned for it. It seems like it's an authoritarian sub and not a libertarian sub. Because no libertarian should have an issue with my statement maybe and how I delivered it but not the message inside of it.

I like to think that I'm pretty honest, inconsistent with my views. If I realize I have a view that's inconsistent with my belief that libertarians the best way forward then accept that I have a personal belief in one that's not right for policy.

There's almost nothing I have in common with American conservative, Canadian conservatives a lot more. Unfortunately, there's no liberal parties that don't like to make bullshit laws, so I don't agree with them very much either. But I do with agree with their sentiment a lot more. So no it's not the same difference

Well, I think it's important to have some of the biggest offenders. Liz Cheney compared to Mike Johnson, Donald Trump, and Ron DeSantis is more libertarian than any of those three even if I disagree with her politics personally.

I was going to say that but I figured they get even more mad. I don't know where policy that well, but she's definitely more libertarian than anyone else on that list

Libertarian is the advocation of government staying out of people's personal lives whenever possible. Respecting one's personal privacy and liberties and fighting for the liberties of others even if you disagree with them. My view on lawmaking is that laws should only be passed when strong evidence supports them being necessary or a requirement for a functional society. An example is the banning of drugs is not based on evidence, in fact, evidence would support the banning things that create a contraband market. Only gives money to criminals and encourages the rise of gangs(prohibition era). Were legalization with proper regulation and education encourages a free market society and a healthier society at that. Conservatism is supposed to be similar, but because this post is about America, we'll talk about American conservatism. American conservatism is all about the "traditional" values that they hold. Normally this includes strong police force, strong military, strong border, harsher punishment for crimes, community driven social programs instead of state or federal. It does get a little confusing when they talk about small government because they also want a lot of government regulation in people's lives like banning of gay marriage, banning of drugs, Book bans, etc. and a weird obsession with liking big business (removing regulation ) Conservatism in different places of the world means vastly different things for example, in Canada, the social issues of conservatism in the states don't exist there nearly to the same extent. They are much more in line with the traditional definition of conservatism. Small government low taxes, Business oriented, regulation only one needed, strong defense, standardized education, socialized health care, etc The real difference I believe is conservatism is the type of policy you would like to see, where libertarianism is how much regulation you would like to see with authoritarianism being the opposite of libertarianism. American conservatism is much more Authoritarianism based where Canadian conservatism is much more libertarian based

I can't tell if you're a troll or just that ignorant. Either way, have a great day!

I'm a libertarian and I'm not conservative

Thank you for the kind words. I try very hard to be a true libertarian. Even if it sometimes means I have to advocate for a policy that I personally don't agree with

But you can get them from government controlled libraries, which is a violation of the first amendment. Don't give staw man argument

Which is what my comment said and I got banned.

So if I find you examples of books banned that shouldn't be in the states that have aggressively started banning books, would you agree that the powers that enacted those laws failed to protect Liberty at the cost of maybe saving a few kids from Reading something inappropriate. Most libertarian I know are willing to accept that some harm may be caused in protecting liberty. 2nd absolutists will make the argument that children dying isn't reason enough to ban guns. Now personally I mostly agree with that although I think the death of those children might be worth some common sense gun laws as long as it does affect law abiding sane civilians from owning guns. Yes I specifically use this example because if you defend the 2nd amendment that strongly you must defend the 1st with the same gumption. I will provide you with a list if you don't believe me.

I would be against that as well, you prove my point that, im truly against books bans (also known as restricting people access to information). Banning information you disagree with is authoritarian, the opposite of libertarianism. I dont Ron would try to make the argument that he is a libertarian. You aren't as libertarian as I am at that's okay! Most people are a mix of libertarian and authoritarian, they are people even more libertarian than I am. Just be honest with yourself and others.

What are you talking about? Obama and Bush are on it and will never be president again. Trump might be president again if it is the will of the people. DeSantis and Johnson are actively in government fighting against libertarian principles. In my libertarian view, they are all enemies of the American people. I think it'd be very hard to make a libertarian case that they are not.

It absolutely is, you must be using a definite definition if you don't believe so. It was soft criticism and it doesn't change. The fact that the people I listed are enemies of libertarianism. I could have also made the argument that Russia is also an enemy of libertarianism. Considering they don't have that in their country. There is no freedom in Russia. You go to jail for disagreeing with your government. But I chose to go the soft criticism. I'm not making the argument that they can't ban me they absolutely can. I'm making the argument that it's a ridiculous ban. It doesn't violate the posted rules, no reason was given and I was muted for asking them to why when it specifically says to message the mods about it. The libertarian subreddit used to be a great place for left learning libertarians and right-leaning libertarians to debate. If the mods disagree with you, they will now ban you. That means the mods are authoritarian in nature, anyone that is authoritarian in nature should not be moderating a libertarian subreddit.

Book bans in the United States have seen a significant increase in recent years, particularly in school libraries. According to PEN America, there were nearly 2,500 unique titles challenged in 2022, a 38% increase from the previous year. That's concerning to people who believe that it restricts students' access to important information and diverse viewpoints. Organizations like PEN America and the American Library Association suggest that challenges to books in libraries and schools often stem from conservative-leaning groups or individuals who object to content they perceive as promoting specific ideologies or social agendas. These challenges can target books that address race, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other sensitive topics. The current trend in the US does suggest a link between certain political views and efforts to restrict access to certain books.

Centrist is still pretty good and so is political compass. Libertarian was pretty good up until recently

I'm going to specifically copy and paste there auto reply for when you get banned. It should be funny regardless on how the answer

Lol what I criticised the post for not including known authoritarian republics that of act in anti libertarian way. Johnson won't let bills he disagree with go to the house floor for a vote, wont get funding for the border while impeaching someone for failing to protect the border, DeSantis for so many things and Trump for supporting a national abortion ban (Although I understand libertarian do have a none religious argument against abortion, I don't think it's strong enough)

I'm Just wondering why you think that, not reddit as a whole because I would 100% agree with you but specifically that subreddit. I genuinely believe that subreddit has been taken over by the right, and feel like I could easily support my stance if you want.

Looking at the comment they banned me on its safe to say at least that moderator is far right. I don't fully disagree, the far left loves to shut down conversation with right/ far right people with aggressive protest, while I support their right to protest, it feels wrong to do. Lol dont get me started on antifa, it's impressive how authoritarian they are while claiming to be anti-fascist, the fit in with MAGA and the extreme right.

Exactly what I thought, I'm hoping this sub is significantly more open and free. Although I am a little concerned that it might be more of an Echo chamber, I think the debate between libertarians is important.

I got the idea they are far right not so much far left, I see constant support for book banning, etc. but being a libertarian by definition and despise both far left and right, although I am more worried about the far right with how they been acting since Sleepy Biden was elected.

It specifically says "If you have questions regarding the ban, please message the moderators in this message". I will be messaging them in 28 days. I know it won't change anything but it will make them mad.