Yeah except 150+5+1000 isn't 500,000, which is an optimistic house price...
Makes sense.
Replace "Conservatives" with "Republican establishment" and it's more accurate. Actual Conservatives are pretty heavily divided on reform vs abolish at this point, and the division isn't between more libertarian influenced conservatives and more libertarian influenced conservatives, it's between more establishment-adjacent conservatives and more populist conservatives, the libertarians aren't even a factor.
Yes, it's disgusting what happens when socialists and Keynesians get more and more control over your government and economy over the decades.
The issue with your argument is that using support for free trade as a litmus test for libertarianism is quite inaccurate. While we do like free trade, it's rather far down the list of libertarian values. Opposing foreign intervention, for just one example, is much higher up. Yes, no actual libertarian would support tariffs (which are taxes, which are theft), but then none of the viewpoints you presented are actually very close to libertarian. They are conservatives through and thru. So if we want to tease out how libertarian they are, you'd want to look at their hostility to funding foreign wars, their opposition to the TLA's, belief in civil liberties, opposition to government handouts to corporations on principle, and only then look at tariffs.
Either way, there is a secondary division between the more pragmatic people who say that whether one reforms them or abolishes them, some kind of replacement will be needed anyway because a serious country needs a intel and counter-intel agencies and federal law enforcement, details up in the air, and there is a separate faction of people with more fringe ideas that think such things should not exist at all, and those also mix into the numbers who support abolish, but with a different thought process and intended outcome.
I vehemently disagree with the attempt to marry libertarianism to pacifist or isolationist ideas. Those are completely separate packages, and if some politicians want to follow both, good luck to them, but it's as much of a libertarian value as monarchism.
Or, you know, I could be using that as one quick example for websites I have literally read for DECADES and so know the general ideological leanings and influence of.
I find the fusionists to generally be missing the point of libertarianism. They tend to get the economics and then stop there, ignoring the core points of libertarianism. They are libertarian, on occasion, mostly by accident. There are libertarian ideas they like, but as for calling them actually libertarian, that they are not.
But the issue is, the meme wasn't talking about libertarian leanings among conservatives. It was talking about actual libertarians versus conservatives as a group.
This is... inaccurate. Many of these things, especially the Athletics and Communications area overlap each other and existed within Slow Traditional Cultures. I mean, most people didn't participate in sports historically with the vast majority either watching and/or gambling on sports events. Further, consumption of music in "traditional" culture was not sitting down and listening to an album, it was listening to one or two songs played by a musician in a common area, much more like listening to a couple of tracks or watching a music tiktok than listening to an entire album.
You have your own person idea of True Libertarianism.
Or in one sentence, libertarians aren't hippies, and Rothbardians, oh the irony, don't get a monopoly on judging what constitutes real libertarianism.
Sure. And Ayn Rand publicly critiqued fusionism, and the YAF, a formerly prominent fusionist group, expelled Ron Paul for being too libertarian. So thanks for backing me up here?
Sure. Real libertarianism, and nearly all libertarians will agree on this, is a belief in the NAP. Quite frankly, fusionists don't believe in that. They take a few ideas that flow from it, but by and large they don't agree with the principle. That's fine, libertarians can be fine dealing with allies. But they aren't libertarians and never have been.
NAP has to be mutual. On the international area, it rarely is, trying to pretend the other side does while it clearly doesn't give a damn beyond how it can be exploited for own benefit is just begging to be mogged on. For now it is a theoretical question, as there is not one, nevermind multiple libertarian countries that would care about this, but if there were, i would expect the libertarian countries to have free trade *with each other*, but not necessarily random other countries, and obviously to not be aggressive towards each other.
True, and neither do half of US libertarians, probably less elsewhere.
No, it doesn't. This shows a complete misunderstanding of how the NAP works or what it is.
If you look at the poll, about half of those surveyed who said they were libertarian didn't believe in anything libertarian (thought that , so... yeah. Not what I'd call a reliable evidence.True, and neither do half of US libertarians, probably less elsewhere.
Libertarian perspectives on foreign intervention - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
www.pewresearch.org
I don't care about Rothbardian dogma regarding how NAP should be understood and work in their theoretical world.
There's no data about which agree with which.
It's a party of not just libertarians, but a specific ideological sub-division of libertarians, which you think represent libertarianism, because you are part of that faction, so why the hell not.In other news, 37% of Republicans want to ban assualt weapons:
Amid a Series of Mass Shootings in the U.S., Gun Policy Remains Deeply Divisive
While a few proposals continue to garner bipartisan support, partisan divisions on others – including a ban on assault-style weapons – have grown wider.
Now libertarians are more likely than most to get people who aren't libertarian to call themselves it, because the idea is appealing. But they aren't. And this was shown rather recently, where there was a purge of non-libertarians from leadership positions in the Libertarian Party, and it is finally actually a party of Libertarians once again, instead of old centrists.
NAP for libertarians is like human rights for the rest of the world.
This isn't Rothbardian dogma. It not being mutual just means not asking permission to defend yourself. I don't think you understand what mutual means. It means asking. That's it. And libertarians don't need to ask for permission to defend themselves. Again, the comparison to christianity comes in helpful here. Just because the person living next door hates Christians doesn't mean you somehow can't be a Christian, even if they try to kill you for it. It doesn't break some principle of Christianity.
Oh, but we can make an educated guess.
The Libertarian Party is a specific ideological subdivision, yes. But then even libertarians are defined by belief in the NAP.
So there aren't actually 'plenty of libertarian critiques of it'. Sure, you managed to find one, good job. I'm sure if you looked you could find maybe a few more. Only that one is one of the main people who tried to add socialism onto libertarianism in his blog bleedingheartlibertarianism, which was 'how do we add a welfare state onto libertarianism' (exactly as dumb as it sounds).
