Learning about politics...Libertarians?

In simple terms it seems like if it has nothing to do directly with them they dont care

 

i.e pro 2a, pro abortion, pro same sex marraige, decriminalize drugs etc.

 

Where do they stand on 1) cancel culture and 2) illegal immigration considering both directly affect them

I guess it depends on your definition of cancel culture and why that's a political platform topic. Libertarians are pro open borders. 

roxa star -

I guess it depends on your definition of cancel culture and why that's a political platform topic. Libertarians are pro open borders. 

Not everybody is open borders...

roxa star -

I guess it depends on your definition of cancel culture and why that's a political platform topic. Libertarians are pro open borders. 

Not universally.


Justin Amash, for example, is not.

I see more inner strife on most policies being a Libertarian than agreement within the party. It reminds me of Willy from the Simpsons... the only thing Libertarians hate more than taxation are other Libertarians. 

I think the libertarian presidential candidate tweeted something like “ it’s not enough for white people to not be racist we just be anti racists, BLM”

daglord -
roxa star -

I guess it depends on your definition of cancel culture and why that's a political platform topic. Libertarians are pro open borders. 

Not universally.


Justin Amash, for example, is not.

Sure, like not all Democrats are anti gun and not all Republicans oppose gay marriage. But the party platform is pro open borders. 

A lot of kooks and fringe nutters involved in it. If you look at the policies some sound very pretty but in reality would be a disaster. 

1 Like

Bend The Knee - 

In simple terms it seems like if it has nothing to do directly with them they dont care


 


i.e pro 2a, pro abortion, pro same sex marraige, decriminalize drugs etc.


 


Where do they stand on 1) cancel culture and 2) illegal immigration considering both directly affect them


I was actually hoping Trump would post your first question to Biden. There would be no right answer. The same people that are for cancel culture are the same ones voting for Biden. So if Biden came out against cancel culture and disavowed them he would severely piss them off. If he says he's for cancel culture it would just further prove he's a POS who should be cancelled himself as he's probably in "cancel culture terms" one of the worst racists still alive.

In 1976 in lens of 1976 he was likened to George Wallace. I could understand today using that lens(for cancel culture) but this was in 1976 they were calling him one of the worst racists to be alive. Since things like learning, time, absolution aren't a part of cancel culture and those statements live on as the person does, how could you not make the same argument today?

I haven't heard the speech in a while but even Biden himself ponders the question in a way and I believe admits he will have to answer for his vote on busing in his famous "I don't want my kids growing up in a racial jungle" speech. Biden used to tout working with racists. He would list that as a reason to vote for him..... repeatedly. He thought the fact he was able to "work with them" was somehow a good thing.

*pose not post.

Mark Antony's hangover - 

I think the libertarian presidential candidate tweeted something like “ it’s not enough for white people to not be racist we just be anti racists, BLM”


& that ended her candidacy.

should have been Amash.

roxa star - 
daglord -
roxa star -

I guess it depends on your definition of cancel culture and why that's a political platform topic. Libertarians are pro open borders. 

Not universally.


Justin Amash, for example, is not.

Sure, like not all Democrats are anti gun and not all Republicans oppose gay marriage. But the party platform is pro open borders. 


maybe, but it's not universally supported.


TexDeuce -

A lot of kooks and fringe nutters involved in it. If you look at the policies some sound very pretty but in reality would be a disaster. 

Good point. If all things were equal across all countries,( free trade, open borders, etc) some of those policies would work. The problem is, we can only control our country, we can’t prevent corruption in others. I do agree that the government should be smaller and stay out of most things.  

roxa star -

I guess it depends on your definition of cancel culture and why that's a political platform topic. Libertarians are pro open borders. 

How are they open boarders when it will eventually cause an issue for them down the road?

daglord - 
roxa star - 
daglord -
roxa star -

I guess it depends on your definition of cancel culture and why that's a political platform topic. Libertarians are pro open borders. 

Not universally.

Justin Amash, for example, is not.


Sure, like not all Democrats are anti gun and not all Republicans oppose gay marriage. But the party platform is pro open borders. 




maybe, but it's not universally supported.

 


Based on libertarian principles I think it would be difficult to justify anything other than open borders.

But we don't live in a libertarian society and I can see politicians who describe themselves as libertarian being against open borders because of the social safety net (which also violates libertarian principles).

IMO it would not be inconsistent with libertarianism to say get rid of the social safety net first and then implement open borders.

Mark Antony's hangover -

I think the libertarian presidential candidate tweeted something like “ it’s not enough for white people to not be racist we just be anti racists, BLM”

Yep, that was bad.

She lost support of most Libertarians I follow.

daglord -
roxa star - 
daglord -
roxa star -

I guess it depends on your definition of cancel culture and why that's a political platform topic. Libertarians are pro open borders. 

Not universally.

Justin Amash, for example, is not.


Sure, like not all Democrats are anti gun and not all Republicans oppose gay marriage. But the party platform is pro open borders. 




maybe, but it's not universally supported.

 

Also most libertarians or libertarian leaning people dont care much about the libertarian party.    This isnt like one of the two major parties where they actually represent the mainstream of political thought.


...ranging from some agorist/voluntarism folks who wont vote at all to people who pick whatever they think the best choice is to maximize liberty out of the two party system.


 


The only real benefit to the party is very sparse downballot voting 


 


 


 

daglord -
Mark Antony's hangover - 

I think the libertarian presidential candidate tweeted something like “ it’s not enough for white people to not be racist we just be anti racists, BLM”


& that ended her candidacy.

should have been Amash.

I don’t see what’s so bad about that statement. When she says blm she is talking about the sentiment of the sentence not the specific organization, just like the majority of people do when they say blm. If you care about liberty for all then you should be anti racist

yabadaba -
daglord - 
roxa star - 
daglord -
roxa star -

I guess it depends on your definition of cancel culture and why that's a political platform topic. Libertarians are pro open borders. 

Not universally.

Justin Amash, for example, is not.


Sure, like not all Democrats are anti gun and not all Republicans oppose gay marriage. But the party platform is pro open borders. 




maybe, but it's not universally supported.

 


Based on libertarian principles I think it would be difficult to justify anything other than open borders.

But we don't live in a libertarian society and I can see politicians who describe themselves as libertarian being against open borders because of the social safety net (which also violates libertarian principles).

IMO it would not be inconsistent with libertarianism to say get rid of the social safety net first and then implement open borders.

It's not.  There have been plenty of libertarians that dont advocate for open borders.


 


The argument essentially is based on what a libertarian society would look like, meaning you wouldnt have the government created externalities, redistributed wealth/costs, lack of freedom of association, and tragedy of the commons regarding the current state of immigration.


 


This is basically something that's beginning to happen in libertarian circles...the concept that you actually need to change things via an actual order of operation to get the desired results.


 


This is a great deal like the issue of abortion and libertarianism.  You have a wildly divergent set of viewpoints regarding the topic within libertarianism. 

^^^ Unless I'm missing something I think you're agreeing with me here. If not let me know what you disagree with.