Just add "Y" and "no Y" to the criteria. We can handle having competitions with age, weight, ability, and formerly gender.. Just add Y chromosome, and then no prejudice, or assumption, and nothing to take offense to.
Almost all statists share some libertarian perspective on some issues. No libertarian has statist perspective on any issues. There are a lot of self proclaimed libertarians, Christians, Muslims, or people of any principle, who are incorrect. Unlike "Republican" and "Democratic" which don't mean anything, "libertarian" means something. You can claim you are "libertarian" just like you can claim you're a "martian", but it doesn't make it so.
Joe Rogan and Adam Carolla are not the only two who mistakenly call themselves "libertarian" at times. They just don't know what it means.
"A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being for any reason whatever; nor will a libertarian advocate the initiation of force, or delegate it to anyone else.
Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim."
— L. Neil Smith
Self-identification is probably the best indicator we've got for whether a label applies to a person. If enough new people label themselves a thing, and use the word to mean something different, I'd argue the word itself has begun to change, or at least has aquired multiple definitions.
Coopting a label in the political sense sucks (see: "liberal"), but from a linguistic perspective it's silly to pretend language doesn't evolve.
Like "Literally" "evolving" to mean "metaphorically"?
When "X" becomes "Not X", that's not evolution but coopting. It's degradation, and it's often purposeful.
"Libertarian" means something, which is why the "Libertarian Party" required an oath to adhere to the non-aggression principle. The fact that statists moved in to ruin the "Libertarian Party", take the oath and betray it, may make them "Libertarian Party" members, but doesn't make them libertarian (in fact, the opposite).
Are you a Christian if you're not Christian but call yourself "Christian"? Are you an atheist if you believe in a god? Are you "blind" if you have perfect vision?
I realize that this assault on reality/truth is at the heart of many issues today.. We have no language if things can mean both a thing, and/or the opposite of that thing.
...which is the point.
You may have a libertarian perspective on an issue, or a group of issues (as almost everyone does), but that doesn't make you libertarian, which means liberty in all issues. There is a line between minarchist and anarchist, and a reason for both terms.
>I realize that this assault on reality/truth is at the heart of many issues today.. We have no language if things can mean both a thing, and/or the opposite of that thing.
Contronyms exist in many languages[0]. They're not part of some nefarious scheme to corrupt Libertarian identity or anything of the sort.
That is how language works. The language you're typing your prescriptivist nonsense in has become bastardized and corrupted from its Latin and Germanic roots over generations, after all.
We should strive for the only equality possible, which is equality in face of the law. There is no other equality. Anyone who says otherwise is selling something.
There is no situation where those with more resources don't have more resources. The best we can achieve is that each rightfully earns their resources.
Freedom is for the brave. Those who prioritize things ahead of freedom should not live in the one nation which exists to protect freedom.
Libertarians understand that there is no greater danger than lack of freedom. Obviously statists don't understand this, which is why they fall victim to the perpetual shilling of fear. There are more fitting nations with congruent priorities.
They who give up essential liberty for the illusion of security end up with and deserve neither liberty nor security.
>They who give up essential liberty for the illusion of security end up with and deserve neither liberty nor security.
You should realize the original quote was given by a statist, Benjamin Franklin, acting on behalf of the state, in defense of the value of state power[0].
>We have nothing to fear but fear itself.
From the inaugural address of FDR[1], also a statist, who would go on to limit personal liberty and expand government power and authority in many ways.
Freedom must always be balanced by responsibility. If you are free to own a weapon you must be responsible for its use/misuse. If you are free to drive a car, you are responsible for the consequences of hurting someone or damaging their property with it.
Freedom is for those who are brave enough to act in a responsible manner and deal with the consequences of their actions. It is not for criminals, the intentionally ignorant, the negligent, or the corrupt.
There is no need for more "enforcement" of responsibility than what is. Ostracism, and/or starving, freezing, being shot, to death, etc., is sufficient.
Government is the disease posing as the cure.
Government doesn't "enforce" responsibility. Despite what they're selling, TANSTAAFL.
Freedom and responsibility can not be separated, and there is no need or want for artificially added, or subtracted, responsibility.
For those in the US who disagree, they should be thankful that they're still free to leave, and go anywhere else that doesn't exist for the sole purpose of protecting the rights of the individual. It is inappropriate to stay in the US, or worse come to the US, and try to violate the rights of the individual because you're too afraid of freedom, or the inherent responsibility.
There is always some form of governance occurring, depending on who thinks they are in charge, even if it's not a state. You seem to be advocating for vigilante justice as an enforcement method, which definitely has downsides, just like everything else. Pure freedom is not beautifully perfect and without flaw.
Utopia is not an option, don't fall for the fallacy. Americans believe that freedom is the best option we have.
Vigilante justice is the only possible justice. Again, the universe has it's own "enforcement method". Anyone who claims anything doesn't have "downsides" is selling something.
Whether you agree or not, objectively, the United States is for people who value freedom above everything else. Those too afraid to live freely should live anywhere else.
I'm libertarian. The way I see it, the shutdown orders are in the same camp as helmet laws for motorcycles - they shouldn't be necessary, because everybody should be choosing to act sensibly out of their own self interest. Alas people make rash decisions, especially when egged on by a treasonous leader who seems hell bent on causing as much destruction as possible.
Also from a libertarian perspective, the shutdown orders have actually increased freedom in a sense. You can't claim to care about liberty while ignoring the debt treadmill forcing the majority to continuously work rather than being able to ever gain economic bargaining power. Liberty only produces prosperity when everybody is allowed to build wealth - freedom to choose within an extractionary economic system just makes for a race to the bottom.
