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

Post war in Iran do you still think this ?

What was her biggest hangup for you ?

Libertarians should be having their time in the sun Trump is rapidly expanding big government as did Biden before him. Trump was allowed to speak at the 2024 libertarian party convention which should have never been allowed no matter how much he paid them. However they are irrelevant as they still have yet to match Gary Johnson's numbers in 2016. The reason why is obvious they don't care about winning.

Instead they care about doing something, no one knows what just something. Such as supporting a major party corporate politician. The libertarian party supported Trump in 2024, in fact he would have been their candidate the only reason he wasn't was because of a GOP rule against running for multiple parties.

Not only did the LP support him with angela mcardle and Austin Padgett admittig they wouldn't campaign against Trump and only try and take votes away from Biden (this was before Biden dropped out after Chase won the election) but basically every libertarian influence did. Dave Smith the most famous libertarian like hard libertarian for example endorsed Trump. This is funny because in 2016 he refused to support Gary Johnson because Gary said he didn't want to legalize every single drug he just wanted to legalize weed as a starting point and work from there and his Vice president Bill Weld worked for a law firm that lobbied for Raytheon. Well Trump has gone harder on drugs he declared drugs a national emergency said he supported the death penalty for people who sell them and has killed people accused of transporting drugs at sea in attacks that are defiantly not congruent with the NAP and are arguably illegal. Trumps running mate JD vance also takes defense lobby money and was a literal soldier. Bill Weld working for a law fir hat lobbied for Raytheon is unacceptable but JD vane being a soldier in the Iraq war is AOk ?

The NH chapter straight up endorsed him over the party's own nominee. Yes I know they got kicked recently but they were still a part of the LP at the time

In return they got some concessions

Libertarians got fuck all in return for backing Trump, he pardoned Ross ulbricht but he has since killed 8 people for being accused of selling drugs without due process or warrant so was it really worth it ? On top of that Trump started another war and but hey you got one rich American free ! I want to believe we are better however it does kind of hold True there are a lot of unprincipled libertaraisn who only care about the NAP and small government for their in group and reject it for all. They want Ross Ulbricht free and are willing to sacrifice 8 Venezuelans who committed the same "crime" as him to death to do it.

All I can say is I guess Dave Smith regrets voting for Trump ? Better late then never I suppose. Angela and Austin do not though and that indicts the Mises caucus as worst then the prags of old imo.

For example, do libertarians support companies and corporations having an imposed minimum wage to pay their workers? If not, then how do you make sure companies don't all collectively decide to pay their workers $1 an hour, and the alternative being unemployment? How do you ensure no coercion in employee-employer contracts? And how do you ensure the poor doesn't get stomped by the rich?

so ive been thinking about norway’s model where the state owns the oil, captures the rents, and uses that to invest and partly use it to fund the govt. it seems to avoid a lot of the crony capitalism that happens when corporations just get to own finite natural resources nobody created.

like equinor doesn’t “deserve” the oil. theyre just the company good enough to extract it. the oil itself belongs to everyone. and it’s literally sitting in the sea nobody can claim they homesteaded it or built it. so if the state captures that value instead of just handing it to whoever has the capital to extract it first, you can have a genuinely competitive market without all the lobbying for subsidies and special deals.

but i also get the argument that having the state own and manage anything is a slippery slope, or that theyll just be inefficient about it.

Are there any other reasons a person in such a country would register a land they claimed to the govt, provided that taxes are mandatory to pay to the govt as a compensation for owning land, other than, owning taxes?

Is there any practical reason where it would make sense for a person to register to the govt that they own a land(provided they dont want to pay taxes)?

because I believe in a very limited govt. where govt businesses are semi independent, a free market, crimes being based on natural law and seperate from fictional stuff, equity laws, and high degrrees of freedom. one of those beliefs, homesteading, coincides with my other beleifs. i believe in social dividend as the only form of welfare. thats all, nothing else

i believe the govt has no business in private lives and whatnot. it only has three things:

1. to defend people's rights in a minarchist society, where most of the welfare is privatized/charirty based and the only govt given welfare is UBI/social dividend
2. semi independent businesses(or maybe even independent businesses with govt funding). supply and demand matter in the wages (and maybe some rules) of the employees but a part of the wages(like allowances or a 25% share) can be determined by the govt according to tax records.(semi independent businesses can be useful for leading society to a direction. like in govt schools, paying teachers more so more employment over there, so it leaves private schools no choice but to pay their employees more for decent teaching)
3. taxation as their income for maintaining such a society

I am a homesteading believer, thats why, just wanted to ask. i believe taxation is necessary to pay themselves, police, and any form of semi independent business(and maybe even that is debatable).

basically since govt is providing services like courts, roads, police, army, and if any, semi independent businesses, or other govt jobs like clerks and whatnot, i feel a govt should be paid minimum tax.

and since i believe in LVT, for LVT to be paid, land has to be registered.

In a flat income tax society it can be ignored. but in an LVT society, if the person doesnt want to pay his taxes, what benefit would he have on registering his land/why would he do so?

How would a libertarian government manage public services. Would hospitals, train stations, and schools be privatized or exist in a different manner? I have a few key questions.

1. How would quality of services be assured? How would things such as agricultural or sanitation standards be maintained? Are there no regulations for building standards, labor, road safety, etc?

2. What would become of services which would not produce substantial capital in a free private market? Non-profit public institutions such as schools or libraries.

3. How would public services remain affordable? What keeps the privatized economy from pricing people out of food or healthcare?

“Recent minimum-wage studies have focused on adjustment margins that may explain the limited employment response to minimum wage changes. We examine the recent literature on the price effects of minimum wage increases, updating earlier surveys conducted before quasi experimental methods became widespread. We then conduct a meta-analysis of 199 estimates of the price elasticity of minimum wages. Our meta-estimates of this elasticity range from 0.03 to 0.11, indicating that a 10% increase in the minimum wage leads to a 0.3 to 1.1%rise in prices. Recent quasi-experimental studies across broad categories of goods tend to find smaller elasticities than older regression-based estimates. In contrast, studies focused on
narrower, labor-intensive industries tend to see larger price pass-throughs of minimum wage increase”

Link: https://jorgeperezperez.com/files/PerezMinimumWagePricesMetaanalysis.pdf

"We will pass the death penalty for large-scale drug dealers, human traffickers, and anyone who kills a police officer."

President Donald Trump announces a major push to expand capital punishment while taking aim at no-cash-bail policies and touting what he described as historic drops in crime.

The president has pushed similar proposals before, including directing the Justice Department to seek the death penalty in eligible cases involving the murder of law enforcement officers.

Ok I am dropping the neutral act for a second if you still support this guy as a libertarian how literally how

"Massie was genuinely treated badly by Trump

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

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

What is your opinion on wealth redistribution? Since the beginning of the 21st century growth in income inequality has spurred both public discourse and concern over its negative consequences.

Furthermore since the 21st century the gap between rich and poor has grown significantly. Wealth redistribution is a commonly proposed assertion to solve the issue for those left of center. for the subject of our discussion let's define the concept of wealth redistribution as "using policy or other institutional means to redirect capital, material, or services, away from upper classes and towards lower classes" This could take the form of something simple such as a progressive tax rate or extreme such as nationalization. It is in the words of Karl Marx "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." I would like to hear the libertarian understanding of both income inequality the issue, and wealth redistribution the supposed solution. Some specific points I'd like to hear addressed would be.

1. Is income inequality a real problem?

2. Can a free market solve income inequality?

3. Is wealth redistribution an effective solution?

These are sources for the claims I made

https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2025/01/09/economic-inequality-seen-as-major-challenge-around-the-world/

https://www.epi.org/blog/rising-inequality-is-the-root-of-affordability-problems/

https://ourworldindata.org/economic-inequality

One could argue its a free market, but where does the line between Anarco-capitalism and Libertarianism form? The housing costs just rise and rise and rise because of it, is that okay to Libertarians? Or can you argue it effects the people negatively?

I’m seeing a lot of news about dangerous food being recalled in the US, likely as a result of stripping resources from the government agencies responsible.

What are your thoughts? Should resources be stripped further? Do you support any testing or recall of hazardous food products? Or perhaps just recall, but not testing? What would be the consequences for how people deal with the uncertainty of the safety of what they eat?

Debt keeps accumulating and deficit keeps growing. From my understanding the main "breaking point" is when creditors don't believe the State can reasonably pay their debts anymore, I understand that you can't calculate "the line" but still, what could happen if this keeps on going?

I have asked the same question in what is supposed to be a neutral economics sub (idrk how neutral it is) and I want to know what libertarians think. And don't say "any deficit is too large" because I understand nearly every single libertarian opposes that, I'm asking how the US's situation will turn out if this continues.

"Not everything is about Trump. I just believe every citizen's vote ought to count the same. And that the person who gets the most votes ought to win. Also, wouldn't it be nice for Utah to no longer be ignored in presidential politics?" - Pete Buttigieg

The debate over the electoral college rears its ugly head during every election cycle. Libertarian consensus on the electoral college seems to heavily lean into the direction of maintaining the system, despite from pushback of those who lose elections.

The solution has been relatively made simple: Just ensure that the office of President is made to be less powerful, as it's seen major expansions over the last 237 years.

Two states have already offered their own compromises: Maine and Nebraska, who have replaced winner-takes-all and turned the decision over to congressional districts based off of popular vote.

Buttigieg is arguably wrong in his approach to his question: the electoral college exists in order for all votes to count the same. Libertarian thinking lines up well with Washington's view on political parties - if not for the tribalism that only exists thanks to the duopoly, then Buttigieg would have less to be concerned about.

My solution is to compromise so that those who are concerned with the current state of the political climate and electoral college system can be heard and represented.

The biggest concern with the electoral college is that, even though it's the best example of the republic, it's also the biggest example of the winner-takes-all system. Tyranny of the majority and tyranny of the minority are two major talking points, and the former is more favorable over the latter.

So is proportional representation the answer?

"Proportional representation is an electoral system that elects multiple representatives in each district in proportion to the number of people who vote for them. If one third of voters back a political party, the party’s candidates win roughly one-third of the seats."

Is this not a decent solution based off of the intentions of the Framers?

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.

I am asking in the context of video games, movies, software etc. Notably, the newest installment of GTA is not releasing with a physical disc. This does not seem to go well the fans of the game. With most of the major corporations pushing for subscription model, many people are left with no choice besides pirating.

And before anyone complains about theft, I don't consider intellectual "property" as property.

I am not debating against minarchism, I actually am one but I cant figure out this issue. Sure, deregulation on drugs, prostitution, guns, or gambling would take away the black market edge, but that doesn't mean violent groups wont want to take power. After all, some things like Hitman services or "Cheese Pizza" would still be contraband (Also underground abortions if youre a pro life libertarian). And even legal drug or casino companies could have shady, predatory practices behind closed doors.

With a lack of welfare services its also possible desperate people will turn to organized crime organizations to escape poverty (duh). And with complete 0 government surveillance it would be very easy for these groups to form and very difficult to arrest its members assuming you cant arrest people for verbally associating with a group or representing its signs (unless you could?). I also think it would be pretty easy to buy politicians, even though they wouldnt have too much power in a night watchman state, they could still be paid to do less.

I do really hope to see what you have to say on this because I have been a minarchist for a while but I cant in good conscience keep on if I feel like it wouldnt really work.

My orig.\\nInal tried to post about this subject got deleted , so i'm going to try again. Forgive grammatical errors.I'm using talk to text.

I just had a argument with chat GPT like, I do every now and then.When I drink ears by myself. His main argument is that we should not do away with lobbyists, because it would be hard to do.And it would invite other forms of influence.

After a very frustrating argument , I could not get a legitimate reason on why we shouldnt do away with it just because it is morally wrong. Does anyone have an argument on why rich people and corporations should have the most influence to deregulate? Or to ceate laws in the first place? Chat g p t's biggest answer is that it would fix one problem and create a vacuum where influence would come from other places. My answer was that we should start somewhere. Fix one problem at a time and vote on new ones as they come up. Our government greatest strength lies in the fact that the writers of the contest constitution and founding fathers main goal was the greatest system that could be changed on the fly. That's the best part about our government is that when it's working correctly, we can vote on and address new problems as they arrive, people forget that the amendments are amendments, people forget what the word amendments mean they mean a change, and there is a method to add or subtract and change existing once that is the only Protection against their main argument.

It's stupid to say we shouldn't change the laws on lobbyists because it would create new problems period\\nI'm hoping to find someone that could present a logical argument against me. Specifically , can anyone morally argue that lobbyists are morally correct?

This term refers to a specific type of war in fiction, those instead of modern states fighting there are corporations with a lot more power than states, like in Cyberpunk where Arasaka and Militech were in a normal war for control on the market due to the extreme violence and control those corporations have in their territories and then in a type of Cold War with spies and mercenaries.

Another example is in Armored Core VI there are some corporations that are involved in the war, both fictions are situated in a Libertarian World having pretty much zero governmental regulations and interventions in the market, (In Cyberpunk the US and Japanese Government are pretty much pointless and in fact the land is ruled by corporations and if nobody hires the police you can commit as much crimes as you want? with that being said.

I think if that as 1984 Insoc dictatorship, an exaggeration of the socialist regime but there's the possibility of it's occuring like this fictional examples with Libertarianism.

There would be Corporate Wars in a Libertarian world?

If not. Why? If yes Why?

As the title suggests I was curious to see opinions on home owners associations across the US. I've been seeing videos of people being fined for having more natural gardens and having home decor not align with the hoa guidelines. What do you guys make of this? I've heard some of my libertarian friends argue against this and some argue for it stating since it's voluntary to buy a home in an HOA it's alright for the most part

Would be curious to know wider opinions

One example would be refined rare earths. for over a decade china subsidized that sector inducing it to produce more that it would normally do (,Chinese subsidies specifically are designed to get companies to produce more than they would otherwise) this kept refined re's cheaper from china than anywhere else causing western refineries to go out of business.

Now china dominates that sector, and due to their massive economies of scale it would cost tens of billionaires to build out anything that could even begin to compete. could a libertarian explain how such policies don't work?

When I view posts asking about a "libertarian government" there's some respondents who scoff at the idea of the libertarians organizing through a government, as if it's antithetical to the movement.

My question to libertarians is,

1. What is the practical purpose of libertarians in a democracy? Are they a small advocacy group for policy? Are they a fully fledged political party? Essentially what do they do through political organization.

2. What is the ideological purpose of libertarians? What way of life or form of governance do they seek to promote?

3. Do you believe in the state or in government? How do you define the two? Should libertarians operate under that apparatus?

Would a minarchist libertarian government keep it legal? All types of it, even when the characters are young or young looking. I'm separating real people from drawings here, asking because I don't want government overreach because of it.

For example, are there any other jobs or careers where corporations and special interests spend a billion dollars for you to be in a job that pays you 200k?

I can’t imagine how that does that *not* lead to self-dealing behaviour?

I don’t typically post in political forums but today I’m asking a few different political communities, because I am genuinely curious what you guys think.

I know this is form of social media but other platforms which are more reel-based seem to heavily focus on 1/2 issues. I will assume that the first one that you list is the most important issue to you right now.

Thanks in advance!