I know I could have probably looked this up with a search engine but its more fun to hear what the good people of lemmy have to say

  • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 hours ago

    Keep in mind that a lot of political words are contentious and can have multiple definitions.

    But in the broadest senses, a libertarian would be someone who orients their politics towards the pursuit or protection of liberty. This can take many forms. In the US at least, many libertarians tend to focus on reducing government interventions in their lives, opposing things like taxes, gun control, abortion and speech restrictions, etc.

    Anarchists could be considered a subset of libertarians. However, they go much further in that they believe in the total abolition of the state. Most anarchists also believe in the total abolition of all relationships involving the domination of people by other people. This typically includes things like capitalism, racial hierarchies, gender hierarchies, or even hierarchies over children.

    So a quick distinction might be that libertarians want a minimal state while anarchists want no state.

    • Taalnazi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Should also add that a lot of libertarians in reality tend to be more of the “I want the freedom to repress others” people, eg wanting homeschooling (which can increase abuse), opposing measures that would improve every person’s quality of life (such as universal healthcare) etc.

      Anarchists on the other hand, tend to be more often on the socialist or communist kind, in where they favour the abolition of hierarchy and thus favour an egalitarian society, by abolition of private (but not personal) property.

      • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 hours ago

        There is a weird contingent of “libertarians” who are very close to just fascists who hate taxes. It makes no sense but I attribute it to the political magnetism of Trump and similar fascist leaders. These people clearly don’t fit any sane definition of libertarian but I think they just continue to identify that way because they used to and they aren’t aware they’ve gone off the deep end.

        They aren’t all like that though.

        However, I disagree that there aren’t valid justifications for some of the specific examples you gave that go beyond a desire to repress people. Some people have been deeply harmed by the state and do not wish to be subject to its logic or control and I respect that choice.

    • Bobr@lemmy.libertarianfellowship.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Good summary :)

      Just my 2c regarding

      opposing things like taxes, gun control, abortion and speech restrictions, etc.

      Opposing abortion is not a libertarian policy, it is a conservative policy. So conservative libertarians hold this opinion because they are conservative, not because they are libertarian. Your example is probably still correct though, because you say it is about US, and I guess in US lots of libertarians are indeed conservatives.

    • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 hours ago

      political words are contentious and can have multiple definitions have been assigned new made-up definitions for us to ignore .

      FTFY

    • Canaconda@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      9 hours ago

      So a quick distinction might be that libertarians want a minimal state while anarchists want no state.

      Aka house cats and yappy dogs.

      And I know that’s apt because it pisses lemmy off

      • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 hours ago

        Or maybe it just doesn’t answer the question lol.

        “I’m downvoted, it must be because I’m right!” is a very silly conclusion here.

        • Canaconda@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          8 hours ago

          Updoots = truth is much sillier but keep yappin puppy.

          Either way you clearly took offense and no amount of reddit dunks will hide that

          • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            8 hours ago

            I never claimed to endorse that view. You certainly can be downvoted for speaking truth. That’s just not the case here.

            Usually this is the case when you are polite and articulate but get no serious replies and only downvotes. In other words, people downvote because they can’t dispute what you’re saying.

            When you post a snarky one-liner that ignores the question at hand in favor of some belligerent tribal attitude, that’s just a low quality comment that belongs at the bottom of the thread. There’s nothing to contest because there’s no substance, so downvotes are the most appropriate response.

              • Assassassin@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                6 hours ago

                Offended by weak trolling? No. You haven’t done anything offensive, just idiotic. It’s sad to see someone try so hard to annoy others and fail. Trolling is easy as fuck and you can’t even do that right.