Ask Lemmy

Libertarians don’t give a flying fuck about liberty. It is an authoritarian movement that aims to eliminate any force standing in the way of their organizing society into a rigid hierarchy predicated upon wealth. A government that is answerable to the people is a countervailing force against the formation (or re-formation I suppose) of such a system. That was indeed the whole reason such a government was invented in the first place.

Famous libertarian Friedrich Hayek supported universal basic income. As a libertarian myself, I always ask myself: “Will this make people more free?” If the answer is yes, then I support it because that’s what true libertarianism is. In the case of UBI and universal healthcare, both of those would unequivocally make people more free. People will be more free to choose a profession they like rather than one that merely keeps a roof over their heads. America already has a form of limited universal healthcare. It just happens to be restricted to the military and maybe some other government servants. Those members don’t have to worry about their healthcare and it allows them to focus their attention on more important matters, as their healthcare needs are met. Clearly the government has seen that universal healthcare is beneficial.

The sovereign citizens and the right wingers masquerading as Libertarians have given the ideology a bad name.

American "Libertarians" consider liberty as self-sufficiency, not just freedom from a government, but from being required to contribute to society as a whole.

This is a bit of a loaded question and very poorly written. Bad troll is bad.

The problem stands that modern "Libertarians" have been corrupted by corporations and conservative bigots to mean "elimination of government and regulation" and not "government to uphold liberty" like it originally did. A correctly Libertarian government would write laws that solely uphold the power of the individual's self determination, which inherently requires restriction of the power of capital.

I consider myself Libertarian, but I feel there now has to be a distinction made between "Capital Libertarians" and "Individual Libertarians". One wants the liberty of capital, the other wants the liberty of the individual. I find myself in the latter. Corporations can go fuck themselves, the individual is paramount.

"Socialist" things like public infrastructure, and yes, public healthcare, would be supported by individual libertarianism. Social support structures like these support individual liberty but restrict capital liberty by requiring taxes to support them, whereas supporting capital liberty by making it "pay as you go" does nothing but remove the individual liberty of the population that finds themselves without any capital through no fault of their own. I absolutely support universal healthcare.

It’s not really about liberty, it’s about freedom from taxes and consequences. They don’t get far enough in the reasoning to understand that they would benefit.

Libertarians: maximum freedom for everyone!

Everyone: what about healthcare?

Libertarians: you're free to die in a gutter!

Because (so-called) "libertarians" aren't.

The term "libertarian" has been hijacked in the anglophone-world (starting in the US, of course) to essentially just mean "fundamentalist capitalist" - they are right-wingers who have been immunized from reality and mindlessly support only "liberty" as it applies to private corporations and their interests. Therefore, it shouldn't surprise anyone that you can find these (so-called) "libertarians" anywhere you find neo-nazis and the KKK.

In the non-anglophone world, the term libertarian still holds it's original meaning - a socialist... or, more specifically, an anarchist.

Libertarians want all the benefits of libertarianism AND socialism, but they don’t want to pay for any of it.

That’s it. That’s the entirety of the political belief.

Because they really just don't want to pay taxes, which are needed to fund universal healthcare.

Also most people who say they're libertarian have no clue what the word means, and are morons.

Used to think I was libertarian. But now I think it's too absolute of an ideal to be any good for humanity. I definitely think free healthcare, housing, food, and education should be guarenteed for everyone.

Libertarians only care about 2 things: lowest taxes possible and legal weed, and they would gladly sacrifice the latter in favor of the former. Anything else is nothing more than lip service.

Universal healthcare means taxes, and that is the one thing Libertarians hate above all. Never mind that it would be cheaper than private insurance. They relish in the fact they can skip buying insurance, and if they get hurt, ERs are required to treat them anyway.

I consider myself a libertarian and I believe in free healthcare. I think certain industries should not be run for profit. It creates perverse incentives that harm the common man. For example healthcare.

If there's a profit incentive in bealthcare, there is incentive for drug companies or hospitals to raise their prices. This would mean less people getting treatment or more people in medical debt.

Another industry I think shouldn't be for profit is education. We want an educated population. It should be encouraged, so it should be free for anyone who wants it.

In my view, libertarianism is a perspective that the government should interfere with the personal liberties of the individual as little as possible.

Every single government action should be heavily scrutinized and challenged. Some actions are justified. For example regulating healthcare I think is justified. You are taking away the liberty of starting a hospital - but the benefits outweigh the costs.

I believe that cooperatives should be encouraged if not explicitly mandated for large companies.

I think to Chomsky's conception of anarchism. Look at all hierarchies of power and challenge them. Some are justified - the power a father has over his child. Some are not - the power a cash advance place has over their customer base.

I think governments often make mistakes and through heavy handed actions end up screwing the average person. By dramatically limiting government action, you help prevent this.

Remember the government is not your friend.

Tldr non partisan answer: Libertarian philosophy favors negative rights over positive rights.

Negative rights oblige others to not impede (like not censoring free speech).

Positive rights oblige others to provide something (like healthcare).

Itt, people being downvoted for answering the question.

Gotta love Lemmy. Lol

Disclaimer, I am not a libertarian by a long shot.

But - there is a difference between freedom to and freedom from. I think in general libertarians believe in freedom to, not freedom from. So you are free to yell, but not free from noise. You are free to walk in traffic, not free from being run over.

It almost makes sense, I don't think people should be free from seeing things that offend them, right? Or free from consequences. So no, they don't think freedom from sickness is a right.

It seems like you have an interesting definition of liberty. Liberty (to me) is freedom from authority. Libertarians core value is not having government force individuals to do anything. If people want to opt into a universal healthcare private system they are free to do so (kind of like insurance). A big motivation for this is lack of trust in government to handle the job well. Libertarians see government as inherently prone to corruption and thus want to limit their power as much as possible. The extent to which a given libertarian wants to limit government varies. By appointing government authorities to the system the cost of everything rises as in addition to health care you also have to pay the government workers who oversee the system and it's not very efficient. Not to mention politicians get to decide how much money goes to these programs etc etc. do you really want politicians involved in your health? With all the inefficiency and corruption in politics why do you trust them to handle your health?

I imagine it's a "negative liberty vs positive liberty" conundrum.

American libertarianism seems to consistently skew towards negative liberty, which is complete autonomy to anything but without any power or resources. I believe this predilection came from Ayn Rand and Reaganism, and that It now manifests mostly as anarchocapitalist sentiments.

I'm a bigger fan of positive liberty - possessing the resources and power to do what you desire within a constrained system.

Unfortunately we live in a society which provides neither. The amazing results of constant compromise.

Libertarians are people who imagine living in their idea of personal, fictional, utopia. Their utopia is one where they pay for only what they want, nobody else gets any of their money, corporations will do no harm, and somehow, magically, they have all the conveniences of modern life.

They just completely ignore that their miserly financial outlook undoes centuries of understanding that an educated society reduces poverty, crime, and unrest, hence the need for public education. Corporations still cause environmental ruin and poison the land, sea, and air…as if giving them minimal or free rein would improve that. Usually their solution to anyone intruding on their ideal world is to shoot them, no need to pay for cops.

In other words, they’re all about their Liberty to do what ever they want. Their version of liberty for you is “You’re free to sink, swim, or die on your own.” They just assume they’ll always be fine or have enough money to do whatever they need. No need to chip in for anyone els’s health care if a) they can’t pay for their own or b) they have their money to pay for theirs, and you’re not getting any of it.

I'm not a Libertarian, but I sympathize with some of their economic viewpoints -- significantly more so than tends to be welcome here. Unlike some of you, I don't speak to the motives and attitudes of all libertarians, only my own. I'm not a Republican. I don't smoke pot. I did vote for Jo Jorgensen in 2020. I do give a flying fuck about liberty. I don't confirm or deny being a myopic cunt.

Oddly enough, I do support some form of public healthcare. I'm well aware that most libertarians don't. A hundred years ago, maybe even 50 years ago, I wouldn't have either. The problem is that medical science has advanced to where a free market insurance model doesn't work as well as it used to. Health insurance used to be a luxury when lung cancer would kill a rich man almost as quickly as it killed a poor man. That's no longer the case, and the costs have accelerated to where the treatment can bankrupt an uninsured middle class man.

The real sinker however is pre-existing conditions. You can't insure a house that's already on fire, and we don't ask homeowners policies to do so. Waiting periods for costly conditions sometimes almost work, except for patients born a pre-existing medical condition. If the insurer had the choice, they'd just refuse to write the policy, even if treatment is cost-effective from a public policy standpoint.

So I support free market solutions where they exist. Health insurance may be one of the few situations where it doesn't.

Do not be deluded by the abstract word Freedom. Whose freedom? Not the freedom of one individual in relation to another, but freedom of Capital to crush the worker.

-- Karl Marx, On Free Trade